Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Stephen David Wyatt Milligan, esquire, Member for Eastleigh, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

NATO Summit

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the NATO summit.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The NATO summit successfully set the agenda for the alliance to meet the challenge of enhancing European stability. Alliance leaders launched a partnership for peace in which the emerging democracies of eastern Europe will be able to develop a deeper relationship with the alliance through practical military and political co-operation.

Mr. Ainsworth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that encouraging answer. Would he care to comment on the recent trilateral meeting with France and Germany which took place in London? Does he agree that that may well help Britain to play a leading role in the emerging European security and defence initiative?

Mr. Rifkind: My recent meetings with my French and German colleagues provided a useful opportunity for informal exchanges of views about a wide range of issues. Perhaps the most interesting information that was shared at the meeting was the decision that the French Government have reached to join the military committee of NATO, in which they have not fully participated since the days of General De Gaulle. They also expressed an intention to participate in informal meetings of Defence Ministers. We welcome that closer association of France with the workings of the alliance, as it is especially important that the views of the French should be available when subjects such as peacekeeping, partnership for peace, counter-proliferation and other matters of that type are being discussed.

Mr. Jim Marshall: If a non-NATO country joins the European Union and becomes a full member of the Western European Union, what will its relationship be with NATO?

Mr. Rifkind: They are obviously separate alliances, but it is assumed that, as countries move towards membership of the European Union, if they also wish to consider a closer association with NATO the two would naturally seem to go together, as would involvement in the Western European Union. It is obviously better that there is common membership so far as possible, but that will depend on the pace of progress, not only for the European Union but for other matters relating to military integration.

Mr. John Marshall: Do the NATO leaders recognise that there will never be a negotiated peace in the former Yugoslavia so long as there is a huge imbalance in firepower there, and is that not an irrefutable reason for lifting the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Muslims can have a chance to defend themselves?

Mr. Rifkind: It has been the policy of the United Nations for many years, not only in relation to the former republic of Yugoslavia, that when wars take place it would be inappropriate for the United Nations to take sides in a conflict of that type or to encourage the supply of arms to any of the combatants.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: One of the most welcome results of the NATO summit was the commitment to open Tuzla airport, which would greatly enhance the credibility of the United Nations and greatly assist the humanitarian effort in central Bosnia. What steps have the Government taken, either on their own or with their NATO allies, to implement that commitment? Is it understood that for Tuzla airport to be opened and kept open will require not only air power but the deployment of forces on the ground, possibly up to brigade strength?

Mr. Rifkind: Two decisions were taken at the NATO summit. One decision was to ensure the relief of Srebrenica, where it has not been possible for the Canadians to be relieved by other UNPROFOR forces. The second decision was to call for an urgent study of ways of opening Tuzla airport. The Dutch have now sent an advance party into Srebrenica and it is believed that the relief operation will be completed during this month. We obviously still need to study the results of the further work that has been commissioned with regard to the opening of Tuzla airport.

Bosnia

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently serving in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: There are at present some 2,300 troops serving on the ground in former Yugoslavia, of which some 1,500 are based in Bosnia-Herzegovina supported by the remaining 800 in Croatia. I returned this morning from a visit to Bosnia, including Sarajevo, where I have seen personnel of all three services hard at work in the former Yugoslavia as well as the Adriatic and Italy. It is clear from my own experience that, despite the difficult and


dangerous conditions in which they operate, our forces continue to make a vital contribution to UNPROFOR in the performance of its humanitarian mission.

Dr. Spink: In the light of his recent visit to Bosnia, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in paying tribute to all the British forces with the United Nations for their courage and skill in delivering the humanitarian aid that has probably saved about half a million lives in Bosnia and is certainly protecting thousands of lives now? Is he aware that senior officers in Bosnia are fully satisfied with the current scope of their operations, and will he refrain from taking any action in the short term which, although it might give instant gratification, would, in the longer term put at greater risk the people of Bosnia, the United Nations and British troops?

Mr. Rifkind: I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to the work of the British and other United Nations forces. He is right to say that that has a crucial impact on the saving of lives. The Bosnian Prime Minister, whom I saw in Sarajevo two days ago, stressed that without that humanitarian aid the people of Sarajevo would have starved over the past year. It is, therefore, important that in any new initiative being considered we continue to attach the highest importance to the United Nations being able to meet the crucial humanitarian requirements of the people of Bosnia, not only in Sarajevo but elsewhere in that country.

Mr. Mullin: Air strikes alone will achieve nothing in Bosnia. They will have to be matched by a commitment of ground forces if anything is to change. To pretend otherwise is just a gimmick, so why are those who were so keen to commit ground forces in the Gulf to reinstate the tyranny in Kuwait not at all enthusiastic about doing so in what would be a much better cause?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion goes against all military advice and military common sense. The fundamental distinction between Bosnia and both the Falklands and the Gulf is that the latter territories had been invaded by foreign armies, so when all other means had been exhausted it was possible to expel the aggressor by military means and send him back where he came from—from the Falklands to Argentina, and from Kuwait to Iraq. As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the vast majority of the people involved in the fighting in Bosnia are themselves Bosnians, whether they be Serbs, Croats or Muslims, and have shared the same villages and communities. Therefore, whichever community they come from, there is no way in which an external army could expel them from their own country.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that those most keen to be first in, such as the Front-Bench spokesmen of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, are often also first out, as was seen during the Falklands crisis? If we were to intervene militarily it would be at the expense of our relief work in Bosnia and we should run the risk of becoming bogged down in the Balkans—something which successive British Governments have avoided for a century.

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly true that any initiative under consideration at present, or that may be advocated by anyone with an interest in such matters, should fulfil two requirements: it must be consistent with the need to show

political leadership and political will, but that political will and leadership must be rooted in sound military judgment. If it is not so rooted, it will be a cruel deception on the people for whom it is designed. It is, therefore, essential that both those criteria be satisfied before any new initiative is taken.

Dr. David Clark: Following the appalling and meaningless slaughter in Sarajevo at the weekend, does the Secretary of State accept that one positive way forward would be to demilitarise and internationalise Sarajevo, making it a true safe area? Will the Government join in an ultimatum to the Serbs to the effect that if they do not accede to that request they must face the consequences of air strikes?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows that these matters are currently being considered by the United Nations. Of course, we all share his reaction to the atrocity in Sarajevo on Saturday: it was an act of pure terrorism against women and children and must be seen in that light. What we must now consider is whether action that might be taken can meet our various objectives: the continuation of aid, which most people accept as being highly desirable; the need to try to influence the behaviour, particularly of the Serbs but also of other factions, with regard to the commitment of military and other atrocities; and our obligation as a national Government in the protection of our own forces, who are already doing a very difficult task in Bosnia. I hope that the whole House will agree that it would be unwise to follow any initiative that would put in jeopardy those other requirements.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is it not significant that the recently appointed American Secretary of State for Defence has said that, when considering air strikes, attention should be paid to the fact that the 22,000 lightly armed United Nations troops on the ground are surrounded by 200,000 combatants who are capable not only of fighting a war but of winning it? In those circumstances, does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the new realism of the American Government? Will he give an assurance that that sense of realism will prevail and that if the Americans wish to contribute more to the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia they are welcome to do so?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the views of Mr. William Perry, the new American Defence Secretary, whom I met in Germany on Saturday. As my hon. Friend indicated, Mr. Perry confirmed that it was his view that all countries must take account of the need to ensure the safety of United Nations forces currently in Bosnia, and that it was important, before any conclusions were reached, to take into account the advice of the military commanders in Bosnia, who clearly have an awesome responsibility which must be an important factor in the considerations currently under way in the United Nations and elsewhere.

Low-rent Accommodation

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the supply of low-rent accommodation for ex-service personnel and their families.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): My Department works closely with


housing associations and the Housing Corporation to ensure that service leavers have access to low-cost housing.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Minister will accept that the recent £150 million cut in local authority credit approvals and the £334 million cut in housing association capital expenditure will inevitably lead to a reduction in affordable housing. I am sure that the Minister will also accept that the Ministry of Defence has some 15 per cent. of void properties, while the figure for local authorities is currently 1·9 per cent. Is that the way to treat people who have risked their lives in the interests of the country when their pay and conditions are being cut?

Mr. Hanley: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Housing Corporation has suffered funding restraints for 1994–95. That will mean a reduction in the availability of some low-cost opportunities; I do not deny that. The joint service housing advice office does a tremendous amount of work in providing housing for people leaving the armed forces. There is a wide range of attractive schemes. Nomination rights have been worked out recently with a number of local councils, including Portsmouth, Chatham, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Plymouth and Doncaster, and negotiations are under way in East Anglia and Berkshire. The authorities have provided 925 housing units, which have been returned to the associations in exchange for 469 nomination places. There is also a do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. A recent survey of those leaving the armed forces showed that nearly 80 per cent. intend to own their own homes, and we are helping with low-cost solutions to that, too.

Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that when service men leave the armed forces prematurely or when there is a divorce, there is a tendency for the family to apply to the local authority where they are currently based? That places an intolerable burden on garrison towns such as Gosport, which I represent. Will my hon. Friend ask the Department of the Environment to review the circular in which it asks local authorities to give priority to service personnel even if they originally come from other local authority areas? That would relieve the pressure on garrison towns.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. There is, of course, additional pressure on garrison towns. That is why most of our initiatives are centred in garrison towns. I will willingly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is looking at the matter closely.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned that a number of houses are left unoccupied by the armed forces. It is right to stress that we have pressures in the armed forces which are not present in district and local councils, inasmuch as we need to have housing that is not only refurbished, but available for occupation at short notice—possibly by large numbers of people. However, we try to keep the number of empty homes down to a minimum and we have sold many in the past year.

United Nations Operations

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the ability of the British armed forces to contribute to United Nations operations.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): We shall continue to ensure that our forces are well trained and well equipped for present and future United Nations operations. Britain's armed services are already regarded as one of the finest peacekeeping forces in the world.

Mr. Connarty: At a time when there is talk in the European Union of air strikes and when France is talking about possibly pulling out if something is not done, does the Minister accept that there is a suspicion that it is the overstretch in the British armed forces that is making them unable as well as unwilling to commit other troops? Does he accept that it is difficult for United Nations staff to draw up contingency plans when member states such as the United Kingdom will not identify troops that will be available? When will he reply to the letter from NATO asking the Government what troops they are willing to commit to a peace initiative in Bosnia?

Mr. Aitken: There is no suggestion that if the commanders of our contingent in Bosnia or the United Nations commanders ask for a certain number of troops they will be denied them.

Mr. Colvin: How many of our Territorial Army units are currently involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations? Does the Minister agree that if we are to fulfil role 3, as set out in the defence White Paper, it is important that our Territorial Army becomes the first line of reserve in the British Army, rather than the last as at present? Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind when he considers his response to the current consultation document, "The Future of Britain's Reserve Forces"?

Mr. Aitken: No territorial units are involved in United Nations operations at present, although individuals from the Territorial Army are involved. My hon. Friend's more general point is currently under active consideration.

Dr. David Clark: Bearing in mind that air strikes alone, without the use of ground troops, have never resolved a war, does the Minister recall the United Nations Secretary-General calling last June for an extra 7,500 troops for Bosnia, of which only 2,800 have materialised? Is the reason why no United Kingdom troops were offered the fact that none was available because of overstretch? If that is the case, will the Minister ensure that an approach is made at the North Atlantic Council meeting this week to ask the United States to send ground troops to augment the United Nations presence as part of a new strategy which could involve air strikes?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have noted that we are the biggest contributor of troops to the UNPROFOR contingent at present. Our contribution is good in terms of numbers. The other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred are matters for the United States Government. I am sure that they will be discussed at the forthcoming North Atlantic Council meeting.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the first question to ask before committing British troops to supporting military action under the United Nations is whether a British national interest is involved? British troops should not be asked to risk their lives in some vague activity directed towards our becoming some form of world policeman.

Mr. Aitken: I think that my hon. Friend underestimates the fine job of humanitarian duty that the British troops are now doing in Bosnia. Of course, in general terms, one of the considerations that has to be borne in mind in any military action is the degree of national interest on behalf of Her Majesty's Government's forces.

Nuclear Weapons Arsenal

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal following the ending of the cold war.

Mr. Aitken: The Government have already announced substantial reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear forces and weapons, including a cut of more than 50 per cent. in our sub-strategic stockpile.

Mr. Cohen: Instead of the Government's creative accountancy in the area, will the Minister consider how other countries view Trident? Especially since the non-proliferation treaty is coming up for extension next year, would an equivalent Minister of another country consider doubling the strategic warheads, as 96 strategic warheads per Trident submarine have replaced 48 per Polaris submarine? Has not the Home Office recently disbanded the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation which existed to detect nuclear blasts and radiation, travelling around the country in the course of its work? Has the Home Office disbanded it because it believes that there is no need for it—and if there is no threat, why do we need Trident?

Mr. Aitken: The House is used to listening to the unreconstructed voice of old-fashioned unilateralism from the hon. Gentleman. When it comes to accountancy matters, the hon. Gentleman has his figures seriously wrong. When the Trident submarines are fully in service, the explosive power of Britain's operational total of strategic and sub-strategic nuclear inventory will even then be substantially lower than before the Berlin wall came down. It would be a reduction of more than 25 per cent.

Mr. Booth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the past year, £27 million of British taxpayers' money was spent in Russia on dismantling nuclear equipment and transporting it away? Is that not an example of the generosity of Britain and the good sense of the Government which deserves credit?

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, with which I agree. It was an imaginative gesture by the Government and we gave slightly more to the Government of Russia than my hon. Friend suggested—some £35 million in total—so that they could build, or have built for them by GKN in Britain, safe carriers to move their nuclear weapons to places of safety.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State personally received the petition handed

to the Ministry of Defence on 27 January by Grandparents' Action Against Trident? Will he also confirm that the Secretary of State has read the petition and understood the arguments against what the grandparents call Trident madness? Does he especially understand the basic point that it is unsustainable for the Government to argue that nuclear weapons are essential to the national defence of this country while, at the same time, arguing that nuclear weapons should be outlawed for the defence of almost every other country?

Mr. Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend's private secretary received the petition and has given it to my right hon. and learned Friend. On the second point, I simply cannot agree. It is still an uncertain and dangerous world and a minimum nuclear deterrent is essential ultimately to safeguard Britain's security.

Drugs Tests

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce random tests on service men for drugs.

Mr. Hanley: The armed forces are currently considering the introduction of compulsory drug testing of personnel on a random basis.

Mr. Townsend: May I encourage the Minister to continue in that direction? Is he aware that many service men, especially those serving in dangerous occupations such as on submarines, would welcome random tests and believe that they would be a useful precaution, bearing in mind the immense expense of equipment which is in the hands of young service men.

Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. The Army has carried out two studies, one in Berlin and one in the United Kingdom, into compulsory drug testing on a random basis and I hope to see the results of those tests shortly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that being a member of the armed forces is different from being a civilian. Soldiers have greater responsibilities in that they often operate with weapons, ammunition, explosives and heavy vehicles, often in difficult or dangerous circumstances. At sea and in the air, they are responsible for extremely expensive equipment. The consequences of being impaired by drugs are much greater for them than for those in most civilian occupations. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend—we must make progress.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern among fishermen in the Clyde and elsewhere of the dangers posed to fishing boats by submariners who may be taking drugs, especially on United States submarines? Will he raise this matter urgently with the United States Secretary for Defence?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has been most devious in getting in his question. He knows that we have recently announced a SUBFACT scheme and that the code of conduct operates in his area. He is right in one regard—if any submariner were influenced by drugs or under the effects of drugs, it would be severely dangerous, as it would be if a fisherman were under the same effects.

Mr. Hargreaves: If my hon. Friend is considering that course of action, will he advise his colleagues in his Department that they should also look carefully at the


possibility of service men taking anabolic steroids, as they are most certainly proven to be connected with violent, if not criminal, behaviour?

Mr. Hanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that if a member of the services were found to be taking anabolic steroids, he would be liable to administrative discharge.

Mr. Martlew: I agree with much of what the Minister said, but does he agree that the emphasis should be placed on prevention rather than on detection and that what we need is schemes that give rehabilitation for, education on, and prevention of, the use of drugs by the armed forces? Is it correct that the Government have allowed the resources for such schemes to be cut recently? Will the Minister give the House the commitment that resources will be made available for those schemes to allow our service personnel, many of whom serve in dangerous areas such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia, to resist the temptation of illegal drugs?

Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman said: it makes a nice change. The armed forces provide lectures, videos, posters and a whole range of measures aimed at preventing members of the armed forces from taking drugs and, indeed, alcohol.

Bosnia

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw United Kingdom forces from Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: British forces will continue through the winter to support the United Nations in carrying out its humanitarian mandate. No decisions have yet been taken about the deployment of British forces thereafter.

Mr. Brandreth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and welcome his tribute to our troops for what they have already achieved in the former Yugoslavia in terms of saving lives and delivering humanitarian aid. Can he confirm that in any future decisions that he makes, he will be guided by the advice and counsel of our commanders on the ground, and that of paramount importance to him are the security and safety of our troops?

Mr. Rifkind: This is a matter of great importance. Indeed, it was one of the central issues that I discussed with General Sir Michael Rose, the United Nations British commander in Bosnia. Clearly, it is a matter which is relevant not only to British troops but to French, Canadian and Norwegian troops and to those from a number of other countries that are contributing to the United Nations presence in Bosnia.

Ms Hoey: Does not the Secretary of State realise that even discussion and talking like this about withdrawing British troops gives the Serbs a green light to continue their aggression? Does he agree that if the Government make that decision—I hope that they will not do so—what they would have to do immediately on withdrawing British troops is allow the Bosnians to arm themselves and to lift the arms embargo?

Mr. Rifkind: No one is talking about the possibility of some unilateral British withdrawal. What it is appropriate for the United Nations to consider is how long its

commitment to UNPROFOR will last and how long it is possible and desirable to carry out what is a difficult and arduous task. We had all hoped that by this time there would be a political settlement in Bosnia, which would have allowed the United Nations involvement to be transformed into a more traditional peacekeeping role. That has not happened, and inevitably a legitimate debate is taking place about what the implications would be for the United Nations if the parties involved in the traumatic war do not reach a solution in the reasonable future.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not the Government's prime concern the safety and security of the British troops now stationed in Bosnia? In the light of that, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, with regard to the proposed air strikes, that great concern should be taken to make sure that the troops are not placed in a position of great insecurity? That would not help matters, and the troops may be used as piggy in the middle by both sides.

Mr. Rifkind: Those considerations must be taken into account. The Government have accepted for some time that there may be specific circumstances in which the use of air power would be appropriate. We have particularly spoken of the acceptability of air power if, for example, UN forces were themselves under attack. Whatever consideration may be given to that question, I can assure my hon. Friend that the security of our forces will be of importance not only to the British Government but to all countries presently considering new initiatives.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The circumstances in which air strikes would be internationally sanctioned with the authority of the UN have been strictly defined to be the protection of the troops on the spot. Does the Secretary of State believe that the UN Security Council would have to be approached again before there were any air strike for wider purposes, such as punitive purposes? If so, what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment about the response of the Government of Russia?

Mr. Rifkind: United Nations Security Council resolution 836 allowed, and indeed encouraged, the consideration of any possible means of ensuring that there was not a stranglehold on Sarajevo, and that gives us a degree of flexibility. It would be appropriate for the Secretary-General to consult members of the Security Council if any further action were thought to be desirable. However, I do not believe that it would require a further resolution of the Security Council, for the reasons that I have given.

"Options for Change"

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with "Options for Change" in the Army.

Mr. Hanley: We have made good progress in implementing the decisions announced in July 1991 in "Britain's Army for the 90s", as subsequently modified by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his statements to the House on 3 February 1993 and to the Select Committee for Defence on 1 December 1993.

Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to spell out the enhanced role of the Territorial Army under "Options for Change"? Does he recognise that


Territorial Army units must be large enough to be viable, and that the recent reduction in battalion establishments needs to be reversed? Will he keep open as many drill halls in East Anglia as possible to maintain vital links with a population that respects and supports the work of our volunteer reserve?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is assiduous in representing the interests of the Territorial Army in East Anglia, and particularly Norwich. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has said that we are looking at opportunities to enhance the role of the Territorial Army. We have had consultations, and we are now looking at what legislation can be put in place.
As to the size of the units, my hon. Friend will realise that the size of a unit must be appropriate to its role. We believe that the post-"Options" size of battalion of 500 is appropriate, and there is no reason at this moment to alter that. I say again that my hon. Friend's representation of the interests of the Territorial Army is a model to us all.

Mr. Dalyell: Are the preliminary findings of the Scotland Yard investigation in the Falklands in relation to allegations against 3 Para to be put in the Library?

Mr. Hanley: That is a matter not for the Ministry of Defence but for Scotland Yard.

Sir Anthony Grant: One of the results of the "Options for Change" policy is that some of the best-trained and best-motivated people in the country are available for service elsewhere. Will my hon. Friend do everything that he can, in conjunction with the Home Office, to encourage those people to serve in the police force, as that may improve the rather fuddy-duddy image of the police?

Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I assure him that where there is talent, the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force want it for themselves.

Western European Union

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union has had regarding the probable increase in membership of the assembly of the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: There have been no discussions on the matter in the WEU Council of Ministers.

Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Council of Ministers, in its wisdom, created a level of associate membership of the Western European Union. Currently, Turkey, Iceland and Norway are applying for membership at that level. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the criteria laid down for associate membership are appropriate when one considers the possibility that countries of the former Soviet bloc in central and eastern Europe will apply to join the WEU? Would they be appropriate if a situation such as that in Bosnia arose in any of those countries?

Mr. Rifkind: We consider the criteria to be appropriate. Full membership is relevant to those who are also members of the European Union. Those countries that have sought associate membership either do not seek full membership

or have not yet become members of the European Union. Therefore, the status of associate member meets that criterion.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is an overwhelming need to get the countries of central Europe on side where the future of European security is involved? Does he agree that one of the best ways, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) said, is proper association with the WEU? It can lead to all kinds of good works in the future.

Mr. Rifkind: It is appropriate that we seek to develop links not only with the countries of central Europe but with the countries of eastern Europe such as the Ukraine and the Baltic republics. I believe that, within the framework of the partnership for peace proposals, it will be possible to see the development of links with not only NATO but the WEU.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that many parliamentarians in eastern European countries believe that the Western European Union can be used as a guarantee of their security? Does not he think it reasonable to ensure that a more realistic assessment is conveyed to those states?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct—article 5 of the Brussels treaty gives total and unqualified commitments to the security of member states. Therefore, it is important that in any consideration of extending that membership, the full implications are taken into account.

Devonport

Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the work load at Her Majesty's dockyard Devonport over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Aitken: Devonport dockyard will continue to receive an allocation of Ministry of Defence refit work in accordance with the needs of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing and justifiable concern about the predicted level of the work load at Devonport? Does not he realise that that could have an adverse effect on the total numbers employed and on the balance of the work force? In view of that, would not it be right to review the Ministry of Defence contract work for surface ship refits at Devonport? At present, only three out of a possible 11 have been allocated to Devonport.

Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend was good enough to acknowledge, the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in June last year secured a good future for Devonport: all future nuclear submarine refitting work will be done there. I understand the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed about employment figures. I cannot promise that any new refit work will be allocated that would take away from the commitments given to Rosyth, but I note that several service ships will continue to be allocated for refits to Devonport until 1997. I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has made until that moment.

Ms Rachel Squire: Will the Minister give a commitment that any increase in the work load for Devonport will not be achieved by closing either Rosyth


royal dockyard or Rosyth naval base? Will he make a statement about the future of both those establishments for the next five years and explain why naval personnel at the Rosyth base have recently been sent a questionnaire asking them where they would like to move if the base closes?

Mr. Aitken: On the hon. Lady's first point, I can certainly confirm that the commitment to the allocated programme for Rosyth that the Government announced still stands and is firm. On her question about Rosyth naval base—a separate matter—and the questionnaire, I should make it clear that in the defence costs study we are considering all naval infrastructure, including many naval bases. No decisions have been taken; nor will they be taken until after the recommendations and the context of the studies have been presented to Ministers.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In looking at the work load that will go to Devonport and the increase that will result from moving flag officer sea training, will my hon. Friend have special regard to the port auxiliary repair unit, PARU, in my constituency and allow it to bid for small ship repair work from both the Ministry of Defence and civilian firms when it is transferred to civilian management, which is what we intend to do?

Mr. Aitken: It is our policy to have as much competition as possible for small ship repair work, so the organisation in my hon. Friend's constituency should have a fair chance of winning some of that work in competition.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dowd: And very entertaining they were, I am sure. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government's proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous backers of the Conservative party? Taken together with the craven submission to the interests of tobacco companies over advertising, does not that demonstrate conclusively that whenever the interests of the Tory party's paymasters are involved, the customer is always the loser?

The Prime Minister: On both counts, the answer is no. In the Deregulation and Contracting Our Bill we are concerned about removing burdens on business. The principal reason for seeking to remove burdens on business is to encourage their competitiveness, their profitability and their success and to encourage the creation of jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues parroting remarks about wanting jobs if they then oppose the measures that will help to create them.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive destruction of a great European capital city and the extinction of a sovereign state that we recognise are unacceptable?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems of Sarajevo and he will know that I will be discussing those with my right hon. Friends this afternoon and that the North Atlantic Council will have a further meeting tomorrow.

Mr. John Smith: On that point, does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if no action is taken to protect the people of Sarajevo from the pitiless shelling to which they have been subjected, the Serbs are bound to conclude that no action will be taken against them whatever they do?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the United Nations Protection Force contingent is in Bosnia to help the civilian population. The United Nations cannot end the civil war by force. That is a point which is generally understood and I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that. That has never been a feasible option. Ultimately, peace will come only at the negotiating table, but the United Nations may need to use force for specific purposes—for example, to carry out its mandate and to protect its own people in Bosnia. It may need tactical air support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We have always been prepared to see air power used for those purposes, provided that the commanders judge it appropriate.
On the question of Sarajevo, I do not believe that we can wait for action to follow an overall settlement. I do not believe that it is right to tolerate the continued mortar and artillery attacks against the civilian population. UNPROFOR, with support from NATO, must apply immediate and strong pressure to halt those attacks.

Mr. John Smith: I appreciate that we cannot end a civil war by military intervention, but should not we set ourselves some minimum objectives? For example, should not a political objective be set to remove all the weapons within striking distance of Sarajevo, with the threat that if that is not done, air attacks will be pursued? Why do the Government not say that that is one of our, and our allies', political objectives?

The Prime Minister: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few moments ago, the North Atlantic Council will meet tomorrow to consider, on the advice of military commanders, what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. If we use air power, we must be clear about the objectives of that action. The aim must be to reinforce pressure to end the bombardment of Sarajevo. To that end, the United Nations command must be able to set clear and specific conditions, knowing that tactical air support is available to back it up if necessary.
Any use of force must be forward looking. It must seek to improve the situation in Sarajevo and contribute to the pressure on the parties to end the war. Those are not easy options and no one in the House believes them to be so. Any decision must take careful account of the importance of the humanitarian operation and the safety of the civilians and soldiers running the operation. Those are the objectives that NATO must consider tomorrow in determining how to proceed.

Mr. John Smith: On the precise point about the threat to Sarajevo, will the Government support a proposition that an ultimatum should be issued to the Serbs to withdraw the weapons of attack from striking distance of Sarajevo?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday made a clear recommendation that
The aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary, including the use of air power"—
but it then went on and looked to the North Atlantic Council to carry forward that process. That decision was precisely in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he was received by textile workers at Firth's in my constituency 10 days ago, what their assembled customers told him and whether he was able to reassure them about the future?

The Prime Minister: It was a most enjoyable visit to Firth's. It is perfectly clear that the company is very successful. Its order book and exports are expanding, and it has invested in the most modern manufacturing equipment for textiles. There was no doubt about the success of that firm in the minds of either its management and work force or its customers who were present on that occasion.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister's new, more muscular mood on Bosnia is welcome, but may I remind him that it is now four weeks since he told us of his determination to open Tuzla airport as soon as possible, and probably five weeks since the launching of the Serb spring offensive aimed at obliterating what remains of Bosnia? Can he tell us of any progress in opening Tuzla airport to which he has set his hand?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is under consideration within the United Nations and NATO. It is not a unilateral matter for the British Government. The United Nations, with NATO's support, is taking a firm line over the roulement of troops at Srebrenica, the opening of Tuzla airport, confronting obstacles to road convoys, warning off the Croatian army and demanding an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. All those important and difficult matters are being considered by the commanders on the ground on a day-to-day basis. They are receiving the full support that they need at a political level.
I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending, as he does so often, that there is some easy, magical and painless solution to a problem that is intensely difficult for the commanders on the ground and everybody concerned with the operation. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one respect only: he has been consistently wrong on every course that he has advocated since this dreadful conflict began.

Mr. Paice: When my right hon. Friend was a banker, before he came to the House, how would he have reacted if a business man had presented him with a business plan that concentrated on building up overheads, increasing jobs at the expense of output and maximising wages whether or not the business could afford them? How would he react to a business plan with the social chapter, a minimum wage and returning to all the problems that beset business in the 1970s?

The Prime Minister: I suspect that I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way as business men will today. They are perfectly clear about the business

environment that they want. They want minimum interference from the European Community, the Government or local government. They want low inflation, the lowest possible interest rates and the right business environment. They do not want a 1960s-style business plan.

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Jones: Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today that John Cahill, the chairman of British Aerospace who has just sold Rover to BMW, is to get a pay-out of nearly £10 million after only two years with the company? How can that be justified?

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Sir Peter Fry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best business plan for Britain is an economy with inflation at 1·9 per cent., the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community and the lowest interest rate for many years? Does he also agree that the business plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would put British business straight into the hands of the receivers?

The Prime Minister: We all know of, and see regularly, the hostility of Opposition Members to business but the economic conditions that we have now put in place—low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax—are precisely what business wants. The Governor of the Bank of England said the other day that economic prospects today are better than at any time in his professional career. We have the basics of the economy right and British business needs the opportunity to build on those basics to create the prosperity, the growth and the jobs that everyone in the country wants.

Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Eagle: If the Prime Minister does not believe that a £10 million pay-off to somebody who has just sold our last remaining car industry to foreign competitors is not a matter for him, will he please explain to the House precisely what is a matter for him?

The Prime Minister: I am intrigued at what the two hon. Ladies say. What intervention and control would the Opposition propose?

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: The House will be aware of today's announcement that British Telecom intends to extend its cheaper afternoon rate to peak periods. In welcoming those price reductions, will my right hon. Friend agree that they would have been impossible under a Labour Government because of the Labour party's pathological opposition to privatisation and competition?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those changes have come about because we decided, against the

opposition of Labour Members, to privatise the industry. I gather that many calls will now be 25 per cent. cheaper. That is very good news for everyone who uses the telephone. By privatising British Telecom, increasing competition and introducing a proper sense of regulation, we have helped to make the services more efficient, more reliable and better value for everyone who uses them. That is what happens when one leaves the private sector to run things, when one does not seek to over-regulate and over-control in every respect.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) (Amendment)

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quietly so that we may get on with the business. I am sure that you can make yourself heard, Mr. Greenway.

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 1(1) of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990 so as to increase the age set out therein.
At the turn of the century, the life of everyone depended upon the horse. Horses pulled the plough to harrow the soil and the implements by which the seeds were sown. When it was time to harvest, the horses were there again, pulling the cutting machines and the carts of grain, straw and stubble so that people might be provided with bread, and other horses and animals upon whose existence man depended might be given sustenance.
Horses pulled buses in our streets, fire engines, milk floats, hackney carriages, refuse carts, tinkers' carts and the conveyances of city gents and their ladies, and they carted childen to schools if these were any distance from home. Doctors went round their patients on horseback. Bishops travelled their dioceses on horses, and gaiters remain the official dress of bishops. Indeed, Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, who crowned our present Queen, never wore anything else when on official duty.
Members of Parliament often travelled to the House in carriages or by some other means of horse transport. No area of life was not touched, directly or indirectly, by this noble creature.
Sadly, there was plenty of terrible cruelty through neglect and wanton beatings. However, most horses were loved and thoroughly cared for by their owners. This was especially true where the owner was wise enough to realise that the cared-for horse lasted much longer and was able to work much better than the abused horse. There was manure in plenty on the streets for everyone, but even then there were those who, in the discharge of their self-appointed task of defending the environment, saw that as wanton pollution.
Then came the internal combustion engine—or, as Winston Churchill so aptly described it, "the infernal combustion engine". Growing numbers of machines have gradually seen cars, lorries and other motor vehicles replace horses in carrying people to the places to which they want to go and in trawling loads of everything, from beer to bridges for rivers and roads. Horses have become ever fewer on our roads, and a horse and cart is now a very rare sight in towns, although driven ponies and traps have returned to some country areas as a healthy, fresh-air means of transport. Nowadays, the only horses seen on our roads are those ridden by children and adults for pleasure, and police and Army horses, which do superb work.
This morning, I had the pleasure of riding a 21-year-old mare called Launceston, an Army horse, in Hyde park's Rotten row, with Captain Charlie McEwen. As ever, the experience was marvellous—on a crisp, sunny morning—and I was reminded again of the need for me to do all in

my power to keep horses among us, and for the House to do the same. Horses are so civilising, yet so challenging, that their influence on society can only be good.
In 1964, as a senior housemaster at Sir William Collins school—a comprehensive for 1,100 boys at King's Cross—I was allowed by my then employer, London county council, to take 20 groups of boys each week for lessons in riding and stable management, paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers, and to observe the effects. Those were fine, tough boys, who stood no nonsense from anyone; but they had to respect the horses to be able to ride and control them, and they had to be able to control themselves to achieve that.
My scheme spread to cover disabled children in special schools, who benefited enormously from riding. It must continue, for both ordinary and disabled children.
Horses now face such dangers on the roads that it may soon become too dangerous to ride on roads unless something is done to improve safety. In 1993, riding attracted 3·5 million people; it seems incredible that it is not mandatory for all riders to wear hard hats on the roads.
On 29 August 1993, The Times reported that there were 32,000 admissions to casualty departments every year as a result of contact with horses—which is an accident rate of 87 men, women and children per day. According to the Daily Mail of 24 September 1993, every year 30 people are permanently paralysed and 15 lose their lives.
As the department of neurosurgery at the Radcliffe infirmary pointed out in 1984, all six of the unhelmeted and improperly helmeted riders who died that year died of primary brain damage; with proper headgear, they could have been saved.
The great danger is that horses may become extinct as their practical uses diminish and the roads become ever more dangerous. Furthermore, we are told that a county the size of Oxfordshire is disappearing under the bulldozer every 10 years: that can only mean ever more riding on roads at a time when traffic is increasing vastly every day. We must ensure that the legislation controlling riding on roads is adequate to provide enough protection for riders to be safe in traffic. Protective headgear can and will save lives.
We should bear it in mind that even the most experienced riders will fall from time to time. Recently, the country was in a state of consternation when it was learned that Her Majesty the Queen had fallen from her horse and fractured her wrist. Naturally, there was much speculation about what would have happened if the accident had been more serious, as it easily could have been.
Her Majesty could have experienced a much worse injury had she fallen on the highway, or fallen on her head with only a headscarf to protect her. The worst could have happened if the horse had been at a walk on the road—let alone if Her Majesty had been travelling at a spanking trot, or even galloping, on a horse that bolted: that can easily happen even to the best horses.
Moreover, even the best horses can suddenly forget their manners and rear, or behave unexpectedly. The Daily Mail of 18 January 1994 stated that the Queen's accident was just one of a number of royal riding accidents, some of which had been fatal:
William III, who succeeded James II in 1689, broke his collar bone when his horse stumbled on a mole hill at Hampton Court. He subsequently developed pleurisy and died.
Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel suffered a similar fate when he fell off a horse in Hyde park and died in agony three



days later. The leisurely ride of Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce of Winchester was interrupted when he was thrown from his horse and killed instantly. A startled Prime Minister Melbourne watched Queen Victoria stumble from her mount.
Those notable examples show that riding can be dangerous. As a spokesman for the British Horse Society put it:
Riding is genuinely regarded as having some element of risk attached to it. It is sensible to take precautions against these risks".
Our ancestors did not have the choice, but protective headgear, in the form of hard hats and helmets, can and does save lives. At £25 and £35, that is not too high a price to pay. At present, no law requires the use of a hard hat above the age of 14, but organisers of safe-riding initiatives, including the British Horse Society, of which the Queen is patron, on whose council I have served for 21 consecutive years, and whose award of merit I am proudly wearing today, constantly recommend safe riding hats for everyone, whatever their age.
We must do our utmost to ensure that all riders are safe. We are on moral high ground. How can we let parents say to their children who are under the age of 14, "You have to put your hard hats on because we are going riding, but I do not need to wear one"?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Stuart Randall, Mr. John Carlisle and Mr. kin Mills.

HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 1(1) of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990 so as to increase the age set out therein: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 February, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Points of Order

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the subject of answers to questions. If it is in order, as I understand that it is, for the Prime Minister to answer questions about the wages of ordinary workers who are struggling to make ends meet, why is it not possible for him to answer a question about Mr. Cahill, who is to receive a £10 million pay-off after selling the British Rover company to BMW? Is not the Prime Minister responsible for such matters?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers, Back Benchers and Front Benchers are responsible for the comments they make in the House. it is not the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: My point of order, Madam Speaker, arises directly from the events at today's Prime Minister's questions, which is increasingly becoming a farce—I think that viewers, of whom there are a million, would agree with that.
Was it in order that, during questions, the Prime Minister gave a detailed answer on the privatised British Telecom in response to a planted question from a Conservative Member, but that, when it came to the rather more difficult question about another privatised company, British Aerospace, he said that it was not a matter for him? We need to know which questions the Prime Minister is willing to answer and which he is not. As long as he continues to perform as he has been, he will bring this place into disrepute.

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

Orders of the Day — Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have to announce that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 o'clock. I trust that other hon. Members will co-operate by voluntarily reducing the length of their speeches.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I shall start by setting the Bill in the wider context of our competitiveness as a nation. There is not one item, or even one group of agenda items, that constitutes national competitiveness. There is not a given moment when that competitiveness can be measured in final or absolute terms. The essence of competitiveness is that it is a process, perhaps even a culture, which, to be effective, must be ongoing. It permeates society and affects the attitudes of the public and private sectors alike. In the private sector, it should embrace the smallest sole trader and the largest multinational corporation. In the public sector, it embraces major issues—the management of the economy, the quality of training and the output of our schools—but it must also penetrate less familiar but contributory factors such as standards, design and, of course, the regulatory climate.
The Government have announced their intention to publish a White Paper on competitiveness, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of our performance and indicating where we are ahead, how we stay ahead and, where we are behind, how we catch up. The Bill is one part of our approach to one aspect of our competitiveness—the regulatory climate.
No advanced society can manage itself outside a regulatory framework. Indeed, it is impossible to contemplate the sophisticated assumptions on which we conduct our everyday lives without the underpinning of regulation. Inevitably, regulation is about restraint. The central issue that confronts us as we manage the Government's deregulation initiative is, therefore, the balance between the legitimate entitlements of society and the damage that can flow from the over-fussy, over-prescriptive use of restrictions.
Regulation can be a spur to innovation and competitiveness. Regulation can be vital to protect the safety of workers, of customers and of the environment. If the balance is tipped too far, however, there can come a point where the real costs outweigh the assumed benefits. That can be particularly true as time passes, as practices change and as new technologies emerge. Regulations that were once considered right and necessary can become burdensome. Businesses feel that they are swamped with red tape and no one should underestimate the significance of that, particularly for the smaller business.
I have been struck by the different psychologies that can be found in small, often owner-managed, businesses and the larger, often international, corporations. For the former, it is often the boss, in what time he or she has to spare, who

has to face the forms, the questions and guidance notes. Let us imagine trying to wrestle with an illuminating passage from "Home Office Guidelines on Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations 1992", which states:
Alternative escape routes should generally satisfy the following criteria: (from any point from which there is initially a single direction of escape) they are in directions apart, equal to 45 degrees plus 2·5 degrees for every metre travelled in one direction. See appendix 1.
I am extremely happy to say that it is now being rewritten.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who was the Home Secretary in 1992 and what did he do about it?

Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was rewritten by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Before the Opposition leap around with expectation, let me read from an order issued by the Excise Office in 1976 under the then Labour Government. I am sure that the Opposition will now be carefully listing the incumbents of the various offices responsible for the Excise Office in 1976. The difference is that the order was still on the statutue book when the Labour party left office, but we changed it. I was trying to be bipartisan by quoting one example of regulations passed under a Conservative Government and then one of measures passed under a Labour Government, but the Opposition cannot resist the temptation to deal with this important issue in the traditional banging about of party politics.
As the Opposition have tried to provoke me, let me be provoked and quote from the 1976 Excise Office order. It states:
Relief in respect"—
[Interruption.] I thought that the Opposition might listen as I am quoting from an order passed under a Labour Government. It reads:
Relief in respect of assimilated articles. The use of oil in manufacture or preparation of an assimilated article does not earn entitlement for relief from duty. But entitlement in respect of oils so used may be earned by subsequent use of the assimilated article in the manufacture or preparation of an article that is not an assimilated article.

Quite honestly—

Mr. Eric Illsley: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I wish to make other arguments.[Interruption.]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Heseltine: My problem is to keep the hon. Gentleman out.

Madam Speaker: Order. Secretary Heseltine.

Mr. Spearing: Will the President kindly give way?

Mr. Heseltine: Of course.

Mr. Spearing: Does the President agree, first, that regulations come before Statutory Instruments Committees for clarification and authentication and, secondly, that when they are made by, one hopes, knowledgeable officials and agreed by, one hopes, well-versed Secretaries of State, the technical language can probably be understood only by the people whose everyday work is involved in carrying out and complying with those regulations? Does the President agree that it would be easy to guy any good statutory instrument on those grounds.

Mr. Heseltine: The question reveals the attitude of the Labour party. As Ministers, we are not supposed to understand; as members of the Committee, we are not supposed to understand; as ordinary people, we are not supposed to understand; but there are some awfully clever people somewhere who do understand, who draft that sort of stuff.
Just try, Madam Speaker, going to those thousands of rooms at the back of hard-pressed businesses where ordinary men and women try to earn a crust and saying to them, "We have all these awfully clever people in Whitehall who understand all that stuff." The fact that business people spend hour after hour, night after night, trying to understand the regulations and we do not understand them simply puts us in the same chaotic position. It must be incumbent on us to make regulations in a language that the ordinary man and woman in the street can understand. It is no excuse for the Labour party to say that it does not matter if they do not understand it as long as clever people understand it. I am not saying that.
This afternoon we are getting a surfeit of over-regulatory zeal here, with half the parliamentary Labour party rising to its feet to try to over-regulate my speech, on which I should like to make progress, if I may.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I give way to the hon. Member for Workington.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the case of the two quotations that he has read to the House, will the President read the explanatory memorandum on the back, which is what we normally read when we want to understand statutory instruments when we debate them?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a 10-minute limit on the time of speeches and it will be important for him to have the chance to make that important argument if he can cram it into the time that you, Madam Speaker, may or may not give him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I will not make progress if there is any further discussion about that.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Illsley: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I will not give way. The place must calm down, if I may suggest it. [Interruption.] Madam Speaker, that was not intended to be lese-majesty, if that is the right approach to your distinguished office.
I am trying to argue, patiently and at some length, that that type of officialese—garbage-speak, if I can coin a phrase—is all too characteristic of government, whether it is local or national. We all know examples of it—the sub-paragraphs, the multiple choice questions and the complications of language. They can drive people who have to fill in the forms and understand the regulations to despair.
That frustration and despair are often a great deal more intense in the small business than they are in the large. The reason is not difficult to find. Larger companies are more able to afford the professional advice or the skilled staff to cope with the intrusions of the public sector. That is why

we have ensured, in our deregulatory initiative, that we take special account of small businesses when we consider the burden that that type of activity places on them.
Our deregulation initiative put in place a system to scrutinise the regulations that affect the wealth-creating process. We set out to review those regulations that were imposed by primary and secondary legislation, those regulations arising from domestic initiative and from European requirements and those regulations that were the product of administrative decision by the army of inspectors that enforced all those regulatory decisions.
We were not prepared, in the exercise, to rely on the advice of the people who had drafted the regulations in the first place. Therefore, we invited Lord Sainsbury to chair eight task forces, which were drawn largely from the private sector, as they began to work their way through the thousands of regulations that actually exist.
As a result of that intense work, the business task forces have made more than 600 recommendations. We have [Interruption.] It is fascinating; the Labour party is solemnly trying to persuade the private sector that it has at least entered the 20th century, yet the moment that the House debates the issues about which the private sector cares most, all that we hear from Labour Members are sedentary interventions about trying to recreate a class divide that the whole country, with the exception of the Labour party, knows disintegrated during the 1980s.

Mr. Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that, year after year, the Government have set their face against providing time to debate a Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments report about poor drafting and extensive use of powers that Ministers do not have. A Committee with a majority of Conservative Members has several times asked the Leader of the House to require that the Committee's report be brought before the House before the statutory instruments are taken, yet the Government have refused time after time.
As the right hon. Gentleman is so worried about statutory instruments, may I ask him why in 1992 the Conservative Government produced almost 3,500 of them—more than at any time in the history of Parliament, and almost double the highest number produced by any Labour Government?

Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that has happened because we have completed the single European agenda, which has meant harmonising the entire range of such matters throughout western Europe. That has required a whole range of reforming regulations. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, and I shall deal with that subject later in my speech. Moreover, as he also knows, and as I shall explain later, our proposals for special scrutiny under the Bill go a long way towards meeting some of his objections.

Mr. David Nicholson: Arising from that point, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the measures that have given most cause for concern and anger in recent years have come under the general heading of food safety or food hygiene. They have affected hotels, restaurants and the tourist industry in general, as well as shops and all sorts of other businesses throughout the country. In the explanatory material on the Bill, I see few examples of such horrors, which Christopher Booker, among others, has exposed. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Bill will eradicate as many of those horrors as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer to his question is that all those issues are under review.
I was about to say that, as a result of the exercise that I described, the business task forces have made more than 600 recommendations. We have announced that we have accepted about 250 of those, and 280 are still under consideration. We rejected about 70, because we felt that the public interest demanded their preservation on the statute book.
When the Bill was published, we issued a booklet called "Cutting Red Tape", which is available in the Library and the Vote Office and which shows the scale of our first response. About 440 proposals are being implemented now or are under active consideration, and we expect recommendations from the voluntary sector task force shortly. We have already identified many changes that would not remove any necessary protection and could usefully reduce burdens.
I shall give some examples of what those changes amount to. Why, for example, should not the Patent Office accept documents electronically, instead of on paper? Why is Government approval needed for parking control equipment used by local authorities to enforce traffic orders? Why should insurance companies have to submit detailed information, which is no longer needed for prudential supervision?
Those are only a few examples. If we needed to find time for primary legislation for every such change, change would take years to achieve. The first four clauses of the Bill therefore provide an order-making power to allow the amendment or repeal of outdated or unnecessarily burdensome legislation.
The order-making power could be used to replace a system of regulation with one that was less burdensome but achieved the necessary protection. We have built in considerable safeguards and constraints on the use of that power: necessary protection will not be removed; consultation with interested parties is required; a draft order would then be laid with an explanatory document giving the reasons for the measure, including savings in compliance costs.
The nature of the deregulation order-making power is that it could cover a wide range of policy matters that may need separate consideration. I understand the sensitivity of that issue. In our view, it is therefore appropriate to provide a special and exceptional form of parliamentary scrutiny in addition to consultation. We have provided a 40-day period during which such additional scrutiny could take place. We have submitted proposals to the Procedure Committee on the form that such scrutiny might take.
The key elements of our suggestions are set out in the explanatory guide to the Bill. We have suggested that a new scrutiny Committee might be set up in each House, with power to examine witnesses and seek additional information. The role of the new Committee—it might be for the consideration of both Houses where they have a joint Committee—might be to consider whether the subject matter was appropriate to be enacted in subordinate legislation and whether the proposed order would remove any necessary protection. Such Committees could recommend whether particular proposals should proceed or whether they should proceed only if amended in some way.
The Bill provides that Ministers would have to take account of the outcome of the scrutiny and of any other

representations in finalising any order. I should make it clear that the Government will look carefully at any other option for effective scrutiny that emerges as the Bill proceeds.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the President of the Board of Trade make it clear what he means in clause 3 by
consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests
or
consult such other persons as he considers appropriate"?
Having described the mechanism—"Cutting Red Tape" says that the Government have identified 3,500 regulations that they may wish to remove—how on earth will that procedure not be swamped by the sheer volume of the changes that he wishes to introduce?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the process of consultation will be wide. It is obvious. Anyone who has read the explanatory memorandum will know that we are trying to give the fullest possible opportunity for people to make representations. But that is for the scrutiny committees to determine. The hon. Gentleman asked about the scale of the problem. We are fully aware as a Government that the scrutiny committees have absolute power to determine the pace at which the process can go through. Therefore, we must have regard to the workload that they can carry. We shall do that in a practical way.

Sir Peter Hordern: I know that my right hon. Friend has not come to this part of the Bill yet, but I am concerned, as are some of my hon. Friends, about part II and contracting out. My right hon. Friend will know that that part of the Bill concerns the powers of the Minister or an office holder to contract out.
As Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I should like to say that the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General appears to be in some doubt under the powers of the Bill. Hitherto, and for 140 years, the position of the CAG has been in no doubt whatever; he is a servant of the House and is not subject in any way to ministerial orders. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give the House an assurance that the measures in the Bill will allow separate rights of contracting out by office holders, not through the aegis of Ministers? It would be quite intolerable if there were any suggestion that the CAG came in any way under the powers of a Minister, since the CAG has the power to pronounce on Government matters and he must be wholly independent of Government.

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are in their places have also raised. I anticipated the possibility of the matter being raised, so I can give a considered reply to what my right hon. Friend said.
Our policy in drafting clause 57 was to ensure that in the functions of an office holder, it would be the office holder—he or she alone—who could give the authorisation to make use of contractors, should an order be laid by a Minister and approved by both Houses. Any order could, therefore, be enabling only. Nothing in the order could suggest compulsion if the office holder chose not to make an authorisation; the powers are, therefore, voluntary. I am advised that clause 57(2), as drafted, gives effect to that policy. If, however, hon. Members believe that differences


in interpretation of the clause may arise, I have no hesitation in giving an undertaking to table in Committee an amendment to make the matter clear beyond doubt.
We have published a list of 55 measures that illustrate the sort of measures for which we consider the order-making provision would be appropriate. They are also listed in the publication "Cutting Red Tape", to which I have already referred. We recognise that how a regulation is implemented and enforced can be just as crucial for business as what is said in it. The task forces have helped to identify problem areas in enforcement. As a result, we have produced guidance material for enforcement authorities and business. Some 18 local business partnerships have been developed to encourage business organisations to work with their local authority to make it easier for them to comply with regulations enforced by local government. Most of the 70 enforcement agencies in central Government have now published codes of good practice.
Reducing the burden of existing regulations is only part of the process. We want to ensure that before new regulations are introduced, the implications are fully thought through. Before new regulations can be introduced, a full compliance cost assessment must be carried out. We are also strengthening the system for assessing the effects on business of EC legislation and we are persuading our EC partners to take more account of business needs. The Bill is only a part of our campaign, but it is an important part.
Chapter II of part I deals with a wide range of matters that the House will wish to explore in Committee. It includes matters as diverse as building societies, slaughterhouses, shop hours, children in pubs, market arrangements and competition law.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I imagine that the President of the Board of Trade realises that, over the years, major pieces of legislation have been reversed or substantially changed within a year or two; examples of that are the poll tax, criminal justice provisions, education provisions and the Child Support Agency. He will not, therefore, be surprised to know that the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain is afraid that clause 21, which appears to take away from local authorities powers over markets and fairs, will actually lead to an increase in the power of local authorities to interfere in the setting up of fairs and markets. Can the right hon. Gentleman put those fears at rest and confirm that that will not happen?

Mr. Heseltine: I can help the hon. Gentleman. Nothing in the Bill will increase the powers of local authorities. The Bill takes away the powers of local authorities, in some limited cases, to prohibit markets operating within six and two thirds miles of the central area. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
Chapters III and IV of part I make the licensing system for operators of goods and passenger vehicles much less onerous. The main provision is a move from licences renewable every five years to licences that can last for the lifetime of a person or of a company. As with all good regulation, the Government aim to deliver services according to need and with the least possible burden on the taxpayer. That means finding ways to encourage the delivery of quality services at the best value for money.
The contracting-out provisions in part II will, subject to essential safeguards, provide us with the means to sweep

away unnecessarily restrictive distinctions between what can be done by contractors and what must be done by civil servants. It will, thus, widen the range of activities that can be tested in the marketplace. The provisions in the Bill provide an order-making power for that purpose, but one which excludes functions affecting the fundamental liberties of individuals. It ensures that accountability and legal liability remain unchanged and provides strong safeguards for confidential information.
There is one other matter, which was raised earlier and was raised previously by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I do not dispute the fact that many of the regulations that we are reviewing have themselves arisen over the lifetime of the present Government. Two things have coincided with that process. First, as I told the House a few moments ago, there has been the completion of the single market and, secondly, there has been a growing awareness of the need to intensify our drive to competitiveness in Europe and, above all, the realisation that Britain now has a real advantage over our European partners, which we are determined to maintain.
The single market required the completion of the Cockfield agenda. Initially, some 300 agenda items were listed for agreement across the 12 members of the Community and the implementation of those items in case after case required regulatory action in the British Parliament. If we have over-regulated, over-prescribed, or if we have overdone it, it is a sign of strength to recognise that and to put it right. It would be a sign of weakness to shrug our shoulders and allow the drift to continue.
It is a sign of neither strength nor weakness to do what the Labour party has done. It is a crass misjudgment to go on repeating what the Leader of the Opposition again repeated on Sunday. We, he said,
will sign up to the Social Chapter".
That social chapter represents the greatest regulatory overload in history. It is the surest way to choke off the investment boom from overseas companies.
Howard Davies of the CBI put it starkly in the past week. He said that Labour's support for the social chapter
ignores the rest of the world, ignores the whole purpose of the single market and ignores the unemployed".
He went on to say:
The main aim of the single market is to make Europe more competitive, by increasing competition and expanding the size of European companies' home markets. The Social Chapter works in the opposite direction, imposing costs on European employers, for uncertain benefits".
That is the stark position that the CBI has put before the country. The social chapter means fewer jobs and longer dole queues.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not believe what the director general of the CBI has so clearly spelt out. It is difficult for the Labour party to square its assiduous courting of the CBI with the fact that every time it receives a piece of the CBI's advice, it is among the first to disown it. That is the real world. The Labour party still does not understand the need to make our companies efficient and to give them the climate in which they can compete. The Labour party still does not believe that it is compatible with national interests in Britain to have opted out of the social chapter, thus avoiding the dramatic costs which would have been put on us.
The Labour party cannot understand that our flexible labour markets are the envy of our continental partners and


that the social chapter would undermine all that we have fought to achieve in this country. In reality, it is yesterday's dogma masquerading as tomorrow's panacea.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: So that we can test the Secretary of State's rhetoric, will he answer this fairly simple question? He has given his enthusiastic support for the takeover of Rover by BMW. Give his analysis of the huge commercial advantages of operating in a country without the social chapter, as opposed to one with the social chapter, can he confirm that it is his view that if BMW is faced with the prospect of cuts in the future, it will make cuts in Germany where the costs of the social chapter are high, rather than in Britain where they are low?

Mr. Heseltine: The real danger to cuts in investment and jobs in this country is the fact that the Labour party has signed up to the European socialist election manifesto, which threatens our industry with a range of restraints that are incompatible with prosperity.
Labour Members need to understand what danger they pose to our industries. Let them understand what the Leader of the Opposition signed up to in November when he flew to Brussels. He signed up to a
substantial cut in working time
and the possibility of a 35-hour week; "European works councils" and "European sectoral collective agreements"; and "a guaranteed minimum wage". Those are the ways in which employment and investment in this country will be threatened.
Labour Members pretend that they have a solution to this problem. They say that they have a package of measures. On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition proudly proclaimed:
Like our partners in Europe, the Labour Party understands that economic success depends more than anything else on the knowledge and the skills of our people. We need to build a self-confident, acceptable, highly skilled and highly motivated workforce to meet the demands of a competitive, rapidly changing economy.
Let us take a look at those partners in Europe to which the Leader of the Opposition was referring. At present, there are two countries in the EC that have a guaranteed minimum wage—Spain and France. The former has a socialist Government; the latter only recently escaped from one. What have socialism and the minimum wage done for those two countries? In France, the unemployment rate is 11·7 per cent. and the youth unemployment rate is over 20 per cent. In Spain, the picture is even worse: unemployment is at 23 per cent., and rising, and 40 per cent. of those under 25 are unable to find work. Yet the Labour party threatens to impose the social chapter on this country and the economy.
Labour Members talk about an adaptable work force to meet the demands of a competitive, rapidly changing economy as part of their business plan for Europe and Britain. How do they square that with a cut in working hours, a minimum wage and European sectoral collective agreements? It is an impossible concept to understand.

Mr. Richard Burden: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: No. I am not giving way any more—[Interruption.] Okay, I shall give way—why not?

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the President for changing his mind. I look forward to his changing his mind on one or two other things in the future.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in lifting the so-called burdens of business, may we take it that he will also lift the burden on business caused by this Government's passing the buck on statutory sick pay? Will he lift the burden on business caused by the Government's failure properly to invest in nursery education? Will he lift the burden on business that was imposed in the past year by causing employers to seek from employees regular agreement to the check-off arrangement, which a great many firms have described as a burden on business? Will he lift those burdens, or just the ones that he picks?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thanking me for changing my mind. I did so because I could see the fatuous nature of the question welling up in his mind. The House will have been in no way disappointed by my judgment on that occasion.
Britain today has an economic opportunity, the fact of which has rarely been more exciting in recent memory. One should remember Britain 15 years ago. For decades, Britain had had a declining share of world trade in manufactures. Britain had been bottom of the European Community and Group of Seven growth leagues for decades. Britain was widely described as the sick man of Europe.
We have come a long way since then. Our share of world trade has stabilised. Our manufacturing productivity has grown faster than in any other major industrialised country. Our industrial relations have been transformed and our inflation record during the past year is the best for 30 years.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts that we will grow faster than Germany or Japan. The German Economics Minister was quoted recently as saying that Britain provided a model for the German economy on deregulation. He paid tribute to the "exceptional results" that we have achieved in breaking down bureaucratic obstacles to starting up new businesses and managing existing companies. That is the sort of tribute which can be measured in terms of jobs and investment. It is in stark contrast to the willing acceptance and the posturing of the Opposition with every nostrum dreamt up in Brussels.
The Bill represents an important step in reducing the burdens on industry, particularly small companies. It is about helping to increase our competitive edge and will sweep away unnecessary burdens on business. It has the potential to save British industry and taxpayers millions of pounds. It will make a substantial contribution to the more efficient working of our economy, and I strongly commend it to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: The President of the Board of Trade, perhaps wisely, did not spend the greater part of his speech talking about the Bill which is before the House. Nevertheless, in those early passages which had some tangential relationship to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman presented it as a measure which would cut red tape.
The Opposition are worried that what makes the Bill notable is not the extent to which it cuts through red tape, but the extent to which it cuts through the procedures of


Parliament. No business has a burden removed from it by the Bill to the remarkable degree to which the first four clauses lift from Ministers the burden of accountability to Parliament. Let us be clear what those four clauses propose. They propose that Ministers may be able to set aside Acts of Parliament by statutory instruments.
I understand that such clauses are termed Henry VIII clauses in disrespectful commemoration of that monarch's tendency to absolutism. They have, of course, become increasingly common under this Government, as we would expect, given their tendency to absolutism. To be fair, the Henry VIII clauses which the Government have produced have so far been slipped into the back of Bills. They have been consequential clauses, temporary in their powers and always related to the Bill which contained them.
The Bill is one big Henry VIII clause. It gives power to any Secretary of State to suspend any Act of Parliament by order. If there is any doubt, the opening subsection of the Bill, which the President wisely did not quote, says that the order may be made to suspend a full Act of Parliament if
a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion—
(a) that the effect of the provision is such as to impose … a burden affecting any person in the carrying on of any trade".
While the President was speaking, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) intervened to ask about the Food Safety Act. That Act was passed with support from both sides of the House. Under clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill, it would be possible for any Minister to come to the House and, by order, suspend an Act passed through the House only three years ago with all-party support.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Good idea.

Mr. Cook: It would certainly be possible to find Conservative Members other than the hon. Gentleman who cried "Good idea" about a full Act of Parliament being lifted by statutory instrument, who would regard the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 as a burden on business, and who would want to see it reduced, amended or repealed by order of the House. It would certainly be possible to find cowboys in the construction industry who thought that way.
I have not the slightest doubt that we would find Conservative Members who regarded the possibility of a Labour Government as a burden on business and, if they could find a Secretary of State who was of the opinion, would amend the Representation of the People Act 1989 accordingly. They may be wise to do so.
The President of the Board of Trade referred to the Department of Trade and Industry document "Cutting Red Tape". The first example of deregulation given by the Department of Employment in its chapter of the document is the abolition of the wages councils. That section is as bold as brass. It presents the abolition of the wages councils as an important step in deregulation because it
freed 2·5 million workers from the rigidities of statutory minimum wage fixing.
It took a Bill to get that abolition through the House.
Let us hear it from the President. Is that the type of measure that will be brought in by order under the Bill? That is what clauses 1 to 4 give him the power to do. A measure such as that, which took away protection from 2·5 million citizens, could be bounced through the House in 90 minutes.
I am surprised and sorry to see that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not in his place. Undoubtedly, he has an

important audience to address with his thoughts. I nurse the lively hope that we shall read about them in tomorrow's papers.
Five days before the Bill was published, the Chief Secretary lashed out at those who undermined great institutions. He particularly warned the nation about those who would do a hatchet job on Parliament, which he called the world's premier debating Chamber. No wonder that, in the same speech, he warned the nation of the spread of cynicism. Nothing does a more thorough hatchet job on the proceedings of Parliament than the Bill presented by the Government.
Let us be clear what would happen and what we would lose if clauses 1 to 4 were passed unamended. Ministers would be able to repeal full Acts of Parliament by statutory instrument. There would be no Committee stage in which the measure, was considered line by line. Statutory instruments cannot be amended; they have to be accepted or rejected as they stand. There would be no Report stage in which new clauses could be considered. The House would have to accept the priorities of the Minister who presented the order.
There would be no Lords amendments in which the second Chamber gave us a chance to have second thoughts. We would not even have the now traditional debate on the guillotine motion, which is a standard part of the proceedings under the Government. Instead of that full, exhaustive process of legislation, we would have the miniaturised proceedings of a statutory instrument, which are usually taken last thing at night in 90 minutes dead, without even the troublesome need to move a guillotine motion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered whether Ministers have considered how a Labour Government might wish to use the legislation as it stands or even in marginally amended form. Do Government supporters really want to leave legislation such as this on the statute book?

Mr. Cook: I do not know whether Ministers have considered that. I have to say that I found myself fantasising about it last night. The very fact that Ministers probably have never thought about it points up the problem we have with the Government. They have been in power so long that they cannot envisage anyone but themselves in power.
Of course, there is an innovation in the Bill. That is that the proposal for a statutory instrument will first be put to a new Committee. I listened with interest to what the President had to say about the new Committee. He laid great stress on the new Committee and what it would say.
If the President of the Board of Trade is genuine and that Committee will be such an influential part of the new process, I find it strange that clause 4—under which the committee is appointed and given those procedures—does not give it the power to reject a proposal, but only creates an obligation on the Minister to "have regard" to its views. We have had a lot of experience of the extent to which the Government have regard to the opinion of anyone other than themselves—we have had 15 years' experience of it.
If anyone has forgotten the lesson of that experience, the Bill contains a good example. Clause 20 removes the rights of local authorities to object to new markets within the vicinity of an existing market. A year ago, there was some consultation about the proposal. The Association of


Metropolitan Authorities believes that 90 per cent. of those who responded were against removing that right, including the local authorities who would lose it, traders in existing markets who would have extra competition and the residents of those sites where the new markets might spring up, who would have extra hassle.
Yet, such is the selective capacity of Ministers to have regard to other views that they have chosen to have regard to those of the minority 10 per cent., who were in favour, and not those of the 90 per cent. who were against.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On the subject of market rights, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the city of Leicester has a right to control markets up to six and two third miles beyond its boundary. Is he aware that that includes the borough of Oadby and Wigston in my constituency, which is entirely outside the city of Leicester? The city therefore has power to control markets in another borough, although not one elector there has elected the councillors of that city—whether Labour or Liberal—or had any say in the matter at all. Is it right that that undemocratic practice should be allowed to continue?

Mr. Spearing: Change the statutory instrument.

Mr. Cook: I shall return to my hon. Friend's remark.
I am aware that Leicester county council, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency, has expressed grave concern that some of the car boot sales springing up in that county are creating dangers to life and limb. I believe that it is important for local authorities to have the right to object.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall not give way again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has put his finger on the problem. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is perfectly entitled to his point of view, and Opposition Members are entitled to theirs. If a matter required primary legislation, that allowed us to debate it. We can debate the contents of clause 21, for example. So why does the Minister need powers to do something by order, which would prevent the hon. Member for Harborough from tabling any amendments?
The Bill contains one anomaly. Let us assume that the President of the Board of Trade really believes that his new procedures in part I are an improvement. Part II of the Bill concerns the remit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the Office of Public Service and Science. It deals with contracting out central and local government provisions and does away with the irksome need for Ministers to pass legislation through this House if they want to hive off another part of the public service. Instead, the power of Parliament is contracted out to Ministers, who will be able to do so by order.
Last month, the Public Accounts Committee warned us that the pace of the transfer of public functions to quasi-private agencies had led to
a departure from the standards of public conduct".
Yet here we are, only two weeks later, debating a Bill which blithely refuses to have regard to the Public Accounts Committee and proposes powers which will pave the way for a more sweeping transfer of the functions of public service to the private sector.
The Bill has an explanatory guide, which lists 26 areas of public life which might be privatised under the provisions. Only two of those have ever been floated for market testing. The list includes the traffic commissioners, the Registrar-General, the official receiver, the rent registration services and court administration.
Bizarrely, the gas measurements service is one of the functions that may go out to contract under part II of the Bill. That service is responsible for measuring the energy content of gas sales, and the accurate calibration of gas meters. Only one private company has the expertise to provide such a service throughout the nation, and that is British Gas, so that would leave the policing of the honesty of gas sales to the company responsible for selling gas.
There is a simple test by which we can tell whether the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister responsible for the civil service believe that the new procedures in part I of the Bill will provide an increased and improved service. Why will not the orders to be laid under part II be subject to the same new procedures provided for under part I? Why will they not let a parliamentary Committee, such as the Public Accounts Committee, first consider any proposals to privatise another part of public life, so that it could monitor whether the Government have any regard for their own reports?
Why not insist on the same extent of consultation with the public, who are the customers of those public services? Why not ask the tenants whether they want estate agents to bid for the rent registration service? Why have two different types of order in the Bill?
There is another reason why we do not believe that the House would be wise to trust the Government with powers to do by order what they find too troublesome to do by Bill. It is as well to be frank about that other reason: we know the Minister to whom we are asked to give those powers. I do not mean the President, who is a big picture man, as he showed in his speech when he quickly moved off the Bill and on the big picture. I suspect that he will forget about the Bill as soon as he can decently slip away from the debate.
The Minister who makes the hair rise on the back of our spine and reach into our pockets for a clove of garlic is the Minister for deregulation, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He has wisely not been allowed to speak in the debate until after the 9 pm watershed, in case he frightens young strangers. May I make a confession: I have a sneaking respect for the hon. Gentleman, based on the fact that I know where he stands. Usually so many miles to the right, he is visible only on a clear day.
How did the Minister for deregulation choose to relax on the night of his Bill's publication? He spent it among friends, with the Libertarian Alliance—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister has other supporters in the Chamber. Among much else, the Libertarian Alliance has called for the deregulation of all drug offences; the abolition of a public police force; and privatising the currency so that every citizen will be at liberty to mint his or her own money.
Instead of telling its members, "Away with fairies," and that he had better things to do with his time, the Minister showed that he was a spirit after their own hearts. He assured them:
Deregulation is really part of a much broader libertarian agenda which I fully share".
We are asked to trust that Minister with powers to extinguish Acts of Parliament by statutory instrument. We


are asked to believe that he will "have regard" to the views of a Committee if it asks him nicely to drop a proposal. The House would be wilfully negligent—so negligent that it could be sued by its constituents—were it to hand over those powers to such a Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Later, I shall address the hon. Gentleman, but that does not mean that I agree with anything that he says.

Mr. Cook: The Minister has removed a weight from my mind in suggesting that he agrees with nothing I say. It would be worrying if he did.
The Minister's candid expression of those trenchant views, however, helps this debate, because it shows where the real division on this matter lies between the two sides of the Chamber. It has nothing to do with red tape. We have no objection to a cremation of red tape that serves no useful purpose and binds the hands of business.
As the President observed, Labour did not, after all, think up the vast majority of the regulations that the Conservative Government are now reviewing. The Government brought them in. Of the 3,500 regulations referred to the task forces, 71 per cent. have been introduced since the Government took office, and 21 per cent. since the present Prime Minister entered Downing street. Of those regulations from the Department of Trade and Industry, 84 per cent. have been introduced since the Government took office, 27 per cent. since the present Prime Minister entered Downing Street, and 13 per cent. since the President was appointed to the DTI.
In the Queen's Speech debate, I pointed out that, when the Government came to power in 1979, "Butterworth's Company Law" was just under 500 pages—broadly comparable to a light novel by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) "Butterworth's Company Law" now runs to more than 4,000 pages—the equivalent of "War and Peace", the works of William Shakespeare and the Bible all rolled into one.
To rub home that point, in 1979, the annex to that volume had 80 forms that businesses might be required to fill in. After 15 years of Conservative Government, the annex to the 1993 volume contains 265 forms. It is not for nothing that the number of business accountants has increased by 75 per cent. under the present Government.
The Government are complaining not about our regulations, but about their own. It is their regulations which they believe to be pointless, burdensome and misplaced. Yes, if the regulations are pointless, we shall happily vote for the new provisions. For example, there is much merit in the new auditing proposals, which will significantly reduce the burden on very small companies.
We shall not, however, support any deregulation that reduces the safety of employees, the health of the public or the protection of the consumers; that is the real divide between the Opposition and the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. We believe that Parliament has the right and duty to provide a legal framework to reduce those dangers.
In his heart, the hon. Member for Tatton believes that the state has no business interfering in such matters. That is why, whenever Ministers talk about regulation, they talk about it only as a burden, as did the President of the Board of Trade.
Regulations that cut accidents at work are not a burden on business; they are a benefit to business, because they cut the cost of injuries to the work force and reduce the production lost through accidents.
The Health and Safety Commission estimates the cost of accidents to business as between £11,000 million and £16,000 million every year. That is the really big burden on business; that is the burden which the Government should be trying to cut, instead of cutting regulations that reduce accidents, and the budget of the Health and Safety Commission which exists to police the regulations. It is another example of the Government being penny wise, pound foolish.
Nor do we impose burdens on industry by obliging companies to meet high environmental standards. On the contrary; we shall leave British industry handicapped in the competition for world markets if we encourage it to settle for lower environmental standards than other countries will accept. We believe that Parliament has a duty to regulate to ensure fair play between producer and consumer.
I understand that the Minister believes that consumers should be free to make up their own minds on what they want. Very well: consumers have made up their minds. They want Parliament to regulate for fair play. A recent poll by the National Consumer Council shows that 90 per cent. of consumers believe that the Government have a responsibility to provide regulations to protect consumers.
Even in the Government's reduced circumstances in the polls, that 90 per cent. must include somebody who still wants to vote for them. That 90 per cent. of consumers see regulations not as a burden that costs them money, but as important protection for the money in their wallets and purses—an enabling measure which helps them get value for money.
There is one consumer issue bigger today than it was before the Conservatives came to power. The operation of debt agencies has increased, because one of the real burdens imposed on the nation is the trebling of personal debt. The Government have published a list of measures that they might introduce under the new powers in clauses 1 to 4. One is to amend by order the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to reduce the obligation on credit agents to notify the Government about changes in their key personnel.
In their constituency work, many right hon. and hon. Members will have come across the sharp practice of those who prey on the needs of those who are desperately in debt. Those hon. Members who have not, have either been extremely fortunate or not very active in their constituency work. My own experience is such that I agree with the spokesman for one consumer group, who said that we should be tightening rules on debt agencies, not loosening them.

Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the mood of the country. Many of those people who are helped with their debts are in the voluntary sector, and the voluntary sector is crying out for the cutting away of regulations, which are often more burdensome on them than on trade and industry. The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point.

Mr. Cook: If articulating the views of 90 per cent. of consumers is missing the mood of the nation, it is the hon. Gentleman who has the selective hearing problem.
I understand why the Government missed the mood of the nation; it was because of the people to whom they listen. There were no consumers on the task forces that they set up to advise them.
The President of the Board of Trade made great play of the importance of small businesses and the importance to small businesses of cutting regulations. It is a pity that that was not remembered by whoever set up the task forces. There were no small businesses there either; it was the big boys. GEC, Bovis and Kingfisher were in the chairs of the task forces.
Membership of the task forces reads like a list of donors to the Tory party. Between them, the companies represented on the task force made 88 separate donations to the Tory party. Four of the eight chairmen of the task forces come from companies that together donated to the Tory party only a few thousand short of £1 million in the last Parliament alone.
They are the people to whom the Government are really prepared to have regard—not some Committee of the House—

Mr. Spearing: The Sleaze (Pay-off) Bill.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is very supportive, but he must allow me to continue.
One of the recommendations from the task forces that was carried into the Bill is that brewers can continue cheating us of the full measures in our pints. They can continue serving up to 5 per cent. of froth instead of 100 per cent. of beer. It certainly removes a burden from the brewers: the burden of providing a full pint to the customer who has paid for it.

Mr. Heseltine: Why did 30 Labour Members of Parliament sign an early-day motion asking us to do just that?

Mr. Cook: Thankfully, as the President of the Board of Trade does not yet have the power to act by order, those hon. Members will have the opportunity to argue their case when we reach that clause, and I shall listen.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote to me 30 of my Back Benchers, he may recall that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who was the Minister for Consumer Affairs until last year, said in the current issue of the CAMRA newspaper:
Once more a Conservative Government has caved in to the brewers".
Nobody from the Campaign for Real Ale was on the task forces. I suspect that nobody on the task forces was from the drinking public. I doubt whether any of the exalted membership of the task forces has been in a public bar in the past 10 years.

Mr. John Sykes: rose—

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a moment to whichever of the hon. Gentleman has been in a public bar.
Bass was represented on the food and drink task force, as was Whitbread, which has given £250,000 to the Tory party during the lifetime of the Parliament. That is why the provision is in the Bill: it has nothing to do with cutting red tape and everything to do with paying back the vested interests that bankroll the Tory party.

Mr. Sykes: Leaving aside the fact that it is impossible to get a frothy head on a pint of London beer, how can the hon. Gentleman justify the extra expense on pubs across the country, when last year there were only 16 complaints, although 200 million pints of beer were served?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman concedes our case when he asks how they could meet the extra expense. Did we need any further evidence that the brewers are pocketing the money by short-changing the customer? That is where the money is coming from, and they are afraid of handing it over. The Government will have regard to those people, not to the House.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I have given way generously during this debate, and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on many other occasions.
There is, of course, a double standard that is represented by this Bill. The Government are so keen to deregulate—[Interruption.] We have in the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) another spokesman for the brewers. I should not want the Tory party to lose the money that it gets from the brewers.

Mr. Riddick: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the brewers' imposing an extra 7p on the price of a pint of beer? That would be the cost of enforcing this provision. Let the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that has been put to him: why did 33 of his hon. Friends sign the early-day motion supporting the introduction of this provision?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has put a precise price on the point that was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). We have been told that brewers now admit that they cheat drinkers out of 7p on every pint. For once, I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, who, when he was the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, said that the drinker should get the pint he pays for.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No. I have given way often enough. The hon. Gentleman has earned his keep from the brewing industry and will now have to stay in his place.

Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to display total ignorance of the fact that brewers would have to introduce new glasses and new meters to correspond with these new measures?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Cook: None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. Having consulted the Register of Members' Interests, I can tell the House that the hon. Gentleman is a parliamentary adviser to the Brewers Society. A more genuine point of order—although I shall not raise it—might concern whether the hon. Gentleman declared his interest before intervening in this debate.

Mr. Riddick: It is in the register, you berk.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that I heard that remark correctly, but if I did, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Riddick: I withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.

Mr. Cook: We can lay the hon. Gentleman's point in the place from which the cheques come.
There is, of course, a double standard represented by this Bill. We have a Government who are so keen to deregulate the private sector—

Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to labour the matter, but it is only fair to the House to point out that a Labour Member too is a parliamentary adviser to the Brewers Society. I can speak with some authority about this subject, as, unlike the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I happen to know something about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members should be quite clear that if they have an interest in the subject of a debate in which they are taking part, that interest must be declared.

Mr. Cook: There is a double standard in this Bill. We have a Government who, while keen to deregulate the private sector, keep rolling out more central control in the public sector.
The President of the Board of Trade will recall that he began his career in the Government as Secretary of State for the Environment. Just after his appointment, he set out his strategy for the deregulation of local government. He said:
We will sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. They do not need, they do not want, the fussy supervision of detail".
Fifteen years later, we have more central regulation of local government than any other country in Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a bonfire of regulations, let us throw on that bonfire the red tape that ties up local democracy—the capping powers, the rules on compulsory competitive tendering and the Treasury regulations that prevent councils from using their own capital receipts to shorten their waiting lists.
What about putting the torch to red tape in the national health service—the mountains of red tape invented through the Government's reforms? In four years, the number of managers needed to control the red tape has increased by 400 per cent. That burden on business, which was created by the present Government, could be removed by them. Such is the gulf between the hype with which Ministers preach deregulation and their own record in office.
At his press conference to introduce this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade was strong on hype. He said:
This Bill will save hundreds of millions of pounds." 
When his Department was asked to quantify the hundreds of millions of pounds, it produced figures that added up to precisely £50 million. The Customs people, when they were approached, said, "We're a little puzzled by the figures." I suspect that the truth is that none of the measures in chapter II or in the background documents will make much difference, one way or the other, to the vast majority of British businesses.
There is, however, one obvious exception. The document "Cutting Red Tape" contains one item that will make a big difference to the budget of every firm, large or small. I refer to the first entry from the Department of Social Security. That Department claims, unbelievably, that the imposition of statutory sick pay on employers cuts

red tape by reducing the administrative burden on the Department. It would take an Orwell to do justice to the double-speak which argues that imposing an additional bill of £750 million on industry reduces the burden on business.
But most of these measures are fairly harmless. The removal of the 1889 Act that prohibits the sale of methylated spirit on Sunday and the repeal of the Pedlar Act 1887 are no doubt worthy tidying-up measures, but they are modest provisions that will not improve our international competitiveness. They are not a substitute for the industrial strategy that Britain needs.
Last week, Britain's economy became the first major one in Europe without a car manufacturer. [Interruption.] Only five years ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs warned that British ownership and control of the car industry must be a matter for the Government. He said that, if that fact were forgotten, the British car industry would go further up the cul-de-sac. of extinction. Now that that is happening, he is laughing.
This week, a group of senior industrialists launched a report that highlights the long-term damage caused by Britain's obsession with short-term financial priorities. Since the new year, we have lost 1,900 jobs in our biggest exporting industry, aerospace. That is not only a tragedy for those who have lost their jobs but a handicap for the economy, which is losing its pool of skilled engineers.
These are the real challenges facing British industry. These are the big issues which the House should be debating. Instead, we have this mean-spirited little Bill, which will weaken our procedures in Parliament without doing anything really to strengthen our industry. It is the final proof of the bankruptcy of a Government who have been in office too long—too long to know how to solve the problems of the nation, because they are problems all of their own making.
This is no time for a uniquely unpopular Government to ask Parliament for yet more powers. It is time for the Government to give back to the people the power to decide who should govern them. In the Division Lobby tonight, we may not prevent them from giving themselves these extra powers, but the people will soon strip them away through the ballot box.

Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) may well pull out his binoculars when he hears me welcome this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has presented an awesome spectacle today. He has made very clear the extent to which we would be not only over-regulated but also deeply over-governed if—God forbid—we were to have a Labour Government.
I welcome the Bill very warmly. For a long time, I have thought that we in this country have suffered from over-regulation in every part of our daily life. It is interesting—and this is a very important point—that in the early 1980s, when a similar difficulty was caused by our employment legislation and the restrictions that it imposed, we took steps to introduce measures on an incremental basis. Although we started relatively slowly to reform our laws, we introduced more and more legislation, which incrementally opened up the possibilities for employment on a free basis and for the exercise of people's rights. I hope that we shall introduce further legislation after the


Bill has completed its Committee stage—successfully, but no doubt with some jollity, judging by the early part of today's debate.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade rightly stressed the importance of the Bill in relation to our industrial competitiveness. We should consider not only our ability to compete with fellow members of the European Union, but the increasing competition presented by lightly regulated Pacific rim countries. If our small businesses are to grow and compete we, too, must be lightly regulated rather than over-regulated.
Over the past few years, people and businesses have suffered as a result of regulation. Sadly, small businesses suffer particularly from over-regulation when there is a downturn in the country's economic fortunes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can the right hon. Lady explain how the current position has arisen—other than through the need to incorporate European Community directives in domestic regulations? For more than 13 years she has supported the current Administration, both inside and outside the House. If the current over-regulation is the fault of that Administration, why do they not reverse it? What could be simpler than to do that and admit that they are at fault?

Dame Angela Rumbold: Many of the regulations involved were introduced during the 1960s and 1970s when the Conservative Administration were not responsible for the legislation.
Most of our constituencies contain small and medium-sized businesses in considerable difficulties. Many of those difficulties were brought about by over-regulation and over-complication involving such matters as value added tax, sick pay and administration generally. I was enthusiastic about the measures introduced in the Budget because I thought it important to relieve small businesses of some of the burdens of form filling—especially in connection with VAT—that officialdom has created over the past year.
Many young entrepreneurs with certain skills—not necessarily accounting skills—start up small businesses. They are then confronted by a huge number of regulations. Some of the regulations relate to accounting procedures. Others, however, emanate from the DTI and other Departments which insist on burdening those young entrepreneurs with a plethora of regulations and forms, making it impossible for them to establish forceful, successful businesses which can compete with their rivals in other countries.
That is the world on which we should concentrate. A young engineer, for instance, may be suddenly confronted by the VAT man or some other official, and told, "You must do such and such today, or we cannot allow you to continue in business". He may also have an important contract to fulfil on that same day. When considering the way in which the growth of new businesses is constrained, we should take account of the amount of business that is lost as a result of time factors and the restrictions imposed by today's over-regulated world. Young and even middle-aged people starting up businesses should have some idea of the accounting and management skills that they will need to acquire. That is a question of training. As I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will

acknowledge, the one-stop shop approach has already proved helpful. I hope that that scheme will be expanded, as I believe that it will assist with the regulations that will have to be introduced at some stage.
I do not want to suggest that I am a total deregulator. I know perfectly well that we must live in a world containing reasonable restraints. I know that even in local government, which was cited by the hon. Member for Livingston, councillors and other officials often have to regulate and impose restraints, for good reasons. I should add, however, that I was a local councillor for some 10 years and I used to dread—and, indeed, leave—committee meetings dealing with what I considered to be interference in other people's business. In the development control and planning committees, every "i" had to be dotted, every "t" crossed; even the placing of dustbins was a matter for those committees. If we allowed some of the more enthusiastic regulators in the House of Commons to have their way, I believe that the House itself would be turned into a development control committee overnight. We would be dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" in every piece of legislation with which we were presented. There is no quicker way of obfuscating the proper business of the House—that of legislating on serious matters—than allowing ourselves to forget that we are not here to interfere in every moment of people's daily lives.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Are not the most welcome parts of the Bill those dealing with the fresh guidelines with which local authorities will be issued? No longer will an enforcement officer say one thing to certain groups of businesses while another officer in the same local authority says something completely different. At present, the arrangements differ from area to area. We need simple standard guidelines, full of common sense, which people will understand.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The regulations are so complex that it is possible for them to be defined in one way by a group of people in Birmingham, for instance, while another group in Bristol interprets them as requiring greater controls. When I was in local government, I found that it was possible to misinterpret every regulation that resulted from legislation passed in the House of Commons.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I also spent some time examining the task force proposals on deregulation. I was encouraged by those proposals, but less encouraged by "Cutting Red Tape". I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to be over-cautious. I fear that with a Bill of this nature it would be easy enough to withdraw from the initial thrust of legislation which would otherwise produce excellent results in the future. That would nullify all the efforts not only of enthusiastic supporters such as myself but of those who have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, although I trust that I shall not be among their number.
A raft of opportunities is available for us to consider. Many are set out in the task force proposals and others will emerge as we consider the Bill. It is important for hon. Members to recognise that the Bill should set a trend whereby it will become the norm for people to consider legislation and its regulations closely, and for those regulations to be not only clear and simple but written in understandable language, which has not yet been achieved.


I am happy, therefore, to support the Bill and the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers to ensure that the Bill successfully progresses through the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, while welcoming the removal of unnecessary and out-of-date regulations, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which proposes to remove these regulations without providing a mechanism for proper debate and which encourages the transfer of decision-making over public money to private individuals who are in no way properly accountable to Parliament.
The amendment makes it clear that I accept the case for getting rid of out-of-date regulations and regulations that are a genuine barrier to efficiency and understanding. I am more than willing to have constructive discussions with the Government to identify and agree on procedures that will achieve those aims. As the amendment makes clear, however, we are concerned about how those goals should be achieved, what the mechanism should be, and how we can ensure that the matter is properly debated. There should be a genuine attempt to strike a balance in the process; at present, the Bill does not do so.
In his opening speech, the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged the creative tension that exists and set out the case for regulations and the continuing need for them. I am not always sure whether the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs agrees with his boss. He sometimes gives the impression that he has not been convinced of the case for any regulation.
If one considers the task forces' report and the proposals that the Government have either accepted or rejected, it is clear that there was, even at the Department of Trade and Industry, tension on the subject of the task force. For example, the task force was opposed to the protection of hedgerows, whereas the Government were still committed to introducing legislation to achieve that end, which I welcome.
Other serious tensions, particularly on small businesses, were well drawn out in the Library brief. It is easy for hon. Members to provide a catalogue of information from individual small businesses on regulations, planning controls and health and safety factors. Those small businesses are required to respond to those regulations, which causes them considerable difficulty. That problem was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in his Social Market Foundation paper, which identified that big businesses are sometimes relaxed about regulations. They not only have the mechanism to police and enforce them, but they regard them as a barrier to market entry for some smaller businesses. That argument should be noted.
It is interesting that, in the same Library brief, the Small Business Research Trust showed the danger of not acknowledging the risks. It argues that many small businesses will concentrate only on picking up business on the fringes, because it is cheaper. That brings the danger that they will perhaps be tainted with the label that they are not of as high a standard as larger businesses. The legitimate questions that need to be asked are: should we abolish regulations for small businesses and give them derogations or should we help them to meet the regulations in two ways? First, we could ensure that they are simple and necessary—there can be a meeting of minds on that

matter. Secondly, we could provide small businesses with practical assistance that recognises the difficulty that they have in meeting regulations, which have too often been drawn up by the Department in consultation only with the large businesses, which do not have the problems.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in considering how to help small businesses to meet levels of regulation, we depart from the real issue: was it necessary to impose such regulations on those businesses in the first place? Is not that nonsense? We should get rid of those regulations that are not necessary.

Mr. Bruce: We need to tackle both the problems that I mentioned because there will still be regulations that are necessary and which small businesses will find difficult. I accept the hon. Member's argument that we should always examine whether regulations are necessary and whether they create an unnecessary barrier or burden.
I want to pursue the argument that many regulations have been introduced by the Government in the wake of privatisation and the broadening of the market. It may well be that, as the market becomes more effective, there will be room to lower those regulations. But we have to be sure of what we are doing, because those regulations were introduced for good reasons. If conditions have changed sufficiently and changes are justified, it will not present a problem. But concerns will continue in some quarters.
The constitutional proposals in the Bill are of genuine concern. Clauses 1 to 4 represent a major constitutional change to the way in which the House does its business. As I said in my intervention during the President of the Board of Trade's speech, the Government, by recommending the new process, at least acknowledge that a radically different position exists and that the House needs to consider that. We should welcome that acknowledgement and consider the proposals.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is not the key difference that the Bill, for the first time, makes it much easier for regulations and legislation to be withdrawn? That is the key change from previous practice. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise and welcome that?

Mr. Bruce: I am prepared to acknowledge that the B ill provides a better mechanism for removing the regulations than applied when they were introduced. If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, he will discover my concerns.
My first concern, which I mentioned earlier, involves clause 3, which seems specifically designed to avoid the possibility of judicial review. It states:
Before a Minister makes an order under section 1 above, he shall—

(a) consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals; and
(b) consult such other persons as he considers appropriate."

It goes on to state that if it is appropriate
to vary the whole or any part of his proposals, he shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to be him to be appropriate.
I am aware that there have been occasions in the past when judicial review has been successful because parties that believe that they should have been consulted have not been consulted, and they have been able to have the matter looked into. The clause seems to ensure that all the


Minister has to say is, "I did not consider it necessary to consult them, whatever their interest and however essential it was." The clause is too wide and I hope that it will be amended.

Mr. Sykes: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the two Select Committees will have the power to call before them whomsoever they would wish to call?

Mr. Bruce: The interventions are anticipating the arguments that I am advancing. I have acknowledged that the Government recognise that there is a need for new procedure. I am addressing their proposals. We should first recognise, however, that we do not yet know in detail how the new procedure will operate. All we have are recommendations from the Government that have to be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. I understand that that Committee has not started to meet to discuss the matter, although it originally said that it might do so. It is waiting for the end of the debate and for the Bill to go into Committee. It would be extremely helpful if the Committee report were to be made available before the Bill reached its Report stage. Otherwise, we shall be debating in a vacuum without any clear idea of the Procedure Committee's concerns.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has hit—perhaps untowardly—on a most important constitutional point. He asks that a body, perhaps a Committee of the House or, indeed, the Government, who no doubt have some views on the matter, present some ideas about the constitution of a Committee which, under Standing Orders, would discuss the probable views of the House. Would not it be more appropriate for that to happen only after Royal Assent has been granted because, prior to that, this House or another place might not wish clause 3 to remain part of the Bill?

Mr. Bruce: I respect the hon. Gentleman's constitutional niceties, but I am being pragmatic. The Government have a majority and I should like to hear what the Procedure Committee has to say, for pragmatic rather than constitutional reasons. Incidentally, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments currently has no representative from the minority parties. I wish to put it on the record that, if the procedure is to be developed, I hope that the Committee will be more representative of the House as a whole. It is fine to talk about the theoretical and constitutional niceties of an alternative procedure, but I am worried about the practicalities.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is no longer in the Chamber, has already pointed out the statistical implications. We already face thousands of statutory instruments every year, but the Government are now asking for an additional procedure to deal with potentially thousands—or at least hundreds—more in any given Session. There is no chance of the Committee dealing with anything other than a tiny fraction of them. It will be able to undertake nothing more than a cherry-picking exercise, choosing to consider those that appear to be most contentious or those that are of most public interest.
The President of the Board of Trade has offered us only an unquantified self-denying ordinance that the Government would undertake to be "reasonable", but we are being asked to give the Government additional powers

without any idea of what "reasonable" means. In those circumstances, the House is entitled to express its serious reservations about the implications of the proposals.
A further constitutional implication is to be found in part II of the Bill, which deals with contracting out. It extends the removal of parliamentary control and accountability even further than the measures that have been introduced in the past 13 years. It is a matter of genuine concern and it is interesting that the debate is coming out into the open. When the Conservative party was in opposition, I remember that there was a great campaign against the wicked quangos which were being created by the Labour Government, but no one has created more quangos and provided them with less constitutional accountability than the Conservatives.
The contracting-out provisions of the Bill take the notion a stage further. The provisions essentially mean that private contractors, private individuals, the employees of private contractors and the contractors of private contractors can act as if they were Ministers or civil servants and that the Minister can override local authorities and require them to transfer the powers of local government councillors and officers to private contractors. The Conservative party claims to believe in tight control and sound money, but it is creating a monster over which it has less and less control.
The Public Accounts Committee has already identified the extent to which money voted by Parliament is being spent by people who are not accountable to Parliament. We are talking not about millions of pounds but about hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds being transferred to people who are not accountable to the House.
I have often campaigned for fundamental constitutional changes to the way in which the country is run, and argued for a written constitution, a Bill of Rights and a fairer voting system, but let us leave that aside. Under the terms according to which the House chooses to operate as a sovereign Parliament, the basic rules are that Parliament votes money and Ministers are accountable to Parliament for spending it. Now, apparently, we are to be told increasingly that private contractors are responsible.
I hope that the Minister will explain the real meaning of clause 60, because I have heard two interpretations. One was that if the Minister intervened and stopped a contract because he believed that a contractor was abusing his power, the contractor might be able to sue him for breach of contract, which would presumably mean that more public money could be lost. What is the use of the safeguard in clause 60 if a contractor has already disappeared with the money, gone bust or is simply unable to account for it? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
There has been a continual blurring of the proper role of Parliament and Ministers and of the proper control of money voted by the House of Commons for public services. That is unacceptable and it is why the Bill is much more important than it perhaps appears at first. Hon. Members, including those who, I regret, are not here today, should realise that we are not debating a simple Bill being promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Bill will fundamentally alter the pattern of Parliament and will affect every Ministry and Department. It could mean that any Minister in any Department could unilaterally amend, abolish or repeal huge rafts of


legislation without proper consultation or debate in the House. We should not underestimate the significance of the proposals.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman has spent some time talking about the aspects of the Bill with which he disagrees, but he has not once said what the Liberal Democrats would do to cut the red tape which is holding back our businesses and stopping them flourishing and growing. He should stop sitting on the fence and instead tell us what his party would do.

Mr. Bruce: I have no problem with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The amendment makes it clear that we are in favour of sweeping away unnecessary regulations, but that we are concerned about how it is done. I can, of course, identify proposals that we favour. One of our concerns that has been mentioned, but which the Government do not share, is that the imposition of statutory sick pay on small buisnesses is a big burden on them. Even small businesses say that the lack of markets and cash flow and their inability to get their bills paid on time are far more serious than regulation.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted the relief of the auditing requirement for businesses with a turnover of less than £90,000. I not only welcome and support that but point out that the Liberal Democrats advocated it in our alternative budget in advance of the Government's Budget. Indeed, we have made, and will continue to make, representations to the Government for the removal of unnecessary or overly restrictive regulations. If the Government approached the issue in a less partisan spirit, this would be a great opportunity to reach agreement to remove regulations which all parties agree are non-controversial.
One fact that I am sure the Minister has already indentified is that no one believes that it should continue to be a criminal offence to provide someone with more than a pint of beer when they have paid only the statutory charge for a pint. We welcome some of the proposals to change shop hours and the relaxing of restrictions regarding children in pubs. Indeed, we have advocated many such proposals, so the intervention of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was irrelevant.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the practical problem that was highlighted in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that to overturn regulation on a large scale would take not years but decades if one were to follow the usual parliamentary procedures?

Mr. Bruce: I am not convinced. Let the Government be honest: we all agree on the regulations that can be removed relatively easily because they are out of date, obsolete or marginal, but others, such as those relating to consumer protection, involve a fundamental difference in philosophy. It is odd that, while one Minister is saying that he will deregulate, when there is a major scandal or row or someone runs off with the money, another Minister tells us what he will do to ensure that consumers are protected and says that we shall have legislation in a few weeks. I do not know whether at that point the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will come over to the Opposition Benches and start to argue against it. It is only reasonable that the creative tension is acknowledged.
I can leave many details of the Bill to the Committee. However, one of the valid and legitimate objections made by the Association for Consumer Research is that the deregulation does not appear to have a coherent framework. That is a direct challenge to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. It will be helpful to Members of Parliament, to businesses of all shapes and sizes, to consumers and to all the relevant groups—whether it be for employment protection, health and safety, consumer protection, standards or whatever—to know the groupings of regulations that the Government are putting together to declare them obsolescent and get rid of them.
There is no clear framework. We are getting rafts of unrelated deregulations with no pattern to them. The Government will simply decide to get rid of the regulations, which will be discarded in their hundreds. If they are grouped coherently, people will be aware of the benefit and businesses will understand the sense of it.
My final argument is that the Government are in danger of pursuing a wonderful line of rhetoric—the hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who intervened on my speech, would do well to consider that—which they will find that they are unable to fulfil. They will create hopes and expectations in the small business community in their constituencies, who will ultimately be disappointed because it has not proved practical because there is no coherent strategy. We are already beginning to experience that type of approach.
The Government must also recognise that they are raising fears that consumer protection legislation will be weakened; that employment protection or people's rights, especially to redundancy payments, will be swept away; that health and safety provisions could be diluted. Those are the worries which will legitimately be addressed in detail in the Bill.
I would suggest to the Government and to hon. Members that we need to have a constructive and honest debate about how we can, get rid of unnecessary regulations, and about how we can, by all means, introduce a culture that enables us to review regulations properly before they are introduced. I would suggest that that mechanism, if it is good for removing regulations, ought to be good for introducing them as well. The Government should consider that. We should realise that that is not as simple as it appears.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am glad to hear the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech because I believe that there will be a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House on the meat of the measures that will be brought forth under the deregulation initiative. The order-making power will in general be used, as is evident from the nature of those which appear in this company document, for measures that will be uncontroversial. I believe, though, that the overall strategy is properly dealt with in that document and the other documents that were published at the same time as the Bill. Reviews are continuing over the range of Government policy in which consumers will have a full part to play when we consult them, before and after the Government make their proposals. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's fears are illusory.

Mr. Bruce: I hope that I am right, but, as we get into Committee, we shall obtain more detail. Many of the proposals in the meat of the Bill will not cause major problems for the Government. Some will, but most,


probably, will not. The trouble is that most of the things that are identified in the accompanying documents are not in the Bill, and some are not clear.
For example, I do not understand why European time should appear. It is acknowledged to be a non-regulation matter. Is there any serious suggestion that we could be forced on to European standard time on the basis of a statutory instrument, among hundreds of others, which cannot be debated as primary legislation on the Floor of the House? The future of the Forestry Commission is mentioned. Does the privatisation of forestry, if the Government were to go down that route, require primary legislation or not? We should be told.
We are worried that fundamental structural changes could be introduced on the basis of a mechanism that will not allow for proper debate and amendment. If the Government are able to provide us with assurances in due course by the time that the Committee has sat, they will find that the Liberal Democrats respond constructively, but we shall have to be convinced that we are not discussing a constitutional outrage which will sweep away the proper responsibility of Parliament and the proper responsibility of Members of Parliament to scrutinise, to vote money and to hold Ministers to account for it.

Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the route that he has signposted. I shall confine my remarks to a very narrow sector—a point touched on earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) during an intervention.
I do not oppose the main principles of the Bill. Deregulation provides additional opportunities for businesses by removing controls and bureaucracy. It stimulates new ideas and can do a great deal to create a climate in which prosperity and jobs can grow and flourish.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his splendid opening speech, quite properly drew our attention to the benefits that will flow from the enactment of the Bill. I wish, however, to discuss a narrow part, and I am concerned about two clauses that might, at first sight, seem insignificant.
They are outside the main thrust of this measure, but they have serious implications for the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner—the ombudsman. It is more probable that the Comptroller and Auditor General will also be affected, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said. It is even possible that the Clerks of the House would be unintentional targets of the legislation.
My interest in the measure arises because I am Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It is, therefore, my intention to confine my remarks to the implications that the Bill holds for that office, even though it may have implications for other servants of the House.
The relevant clauses are clauses 57 and 67. It will be seen that clause 57(2) and (3) draws attention to what might happen as far as the Parliamentary Commissioner

for Administration is concerned. It would seem from at least one interpretation that a Minister would be able to instruct an Officer of the House.
I put it to the House that that would be something of a constitutional novelty. It has serious implications for the ombudsman, whose office was set up by the House and who is required to inquire into complaints made by citizens about the way in which Government Departments administer or implement Acts of Parliament. It is the ombudsman's duty—a duty that has been laid upon him by the House—to inquire into examples of maladministration—for example, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Transport or the national health service.
The ombudsman is required to publish a report following his investigation, which sets out his findings and suggests remedies. From time to time, therefore, the ombudsman is seen to be clearly critical of the way in which a Government Department discharges its duties and responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Commissioner or the Health Service Commissioner can do that because he does not owe his existence to any Minister or to Government. He is an Officer of the House, and he is therefore independent and impartial, owing no allegiance to Ministers or Government Departments. If his office is contracted out, I believe that that impartiality will be substantially damaged. Like the judiciary, the ombudsman is involved in justice—justice for the citizen against an overbearing or maladministering arm of the state.
A recent report by the Select Committee on the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration concluded that the independence of the ombudsman should be further emphasised and enhanced, and that it should be done by changing the way in which he is appointed and his office funded.
In the report—only the second issued by the Select Committee in about 25 years—that relates to the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Committee said:
We recommend that the Government introduce legislation to meet the expenses of the office from monies voted directly by Parliament on estimates prepared by the Public Administration Commission. We also recommend that the Government introduce legislation to provide for the appointment of the ombudsman by the Crown on an address of the House of Commons. No motion being made in such an address except by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Leader of the Opposition.
The Bill, or rather the part of it that I have mentioned, goes in the opposite direction, with powers being transferred from the House to the Government. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends in government would not abuse their new powers, but someone else, perhaps in some new Parliament, might be tempted to do so.
That is why I believe that the two clauses should be amended to remove the Officers of the House from the effects of the Bill. Alternatively, any decision conveying the powers and responsibilities of the Parliamentary Commissioner to any third party should lie firmly with the Commissioner himself. It should be his decision, not that of a Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and me to meet him yesterday to discuss that specific issue. I thank him both for his courtesy and for his time. He showed considerable understanding of and


sympathy for the views that we expressed. I therefore hope that, when the Under-Secretary of State sums up, he will be able to reassure me on this matter.
I regard it as an issue of constitutional importance, which has a considerable bearing on an Officer of the House and on the House itself. I shall therefore listen with even greater care than usual to what my hon. Friend says when he winds up.

Dr. Tony Wright: The day that the President of the Board of Trade published the Bill, he spoke on the "Today" programme on Radio 4, and was asked to give illustrations of the kind of burden that he meant to remove. Casting around for an example, he lighted upon school governors, and said that the governors he knew were always telling him that they were burdened with regulations. He did not pause to think where those regulations had come from. Therein is a microcosm of the story of the past 15 years. There we see the origins of the deregulation that is now being discussed.
The Government said that they were a new kind of Government, representing a new kind of Conservatism, which had nothing to do with the old kind. They intended to take up society by the roots and remake everything they could get their hands on—the health service, local government, education, the trade unions—you name it, and in they would go to legislate. Of course, the consequence is that we have never been so legislated against.
I am not sure whether I am allowed to say this, but the President of the Board of Trade was not telling the entire truth when he said, in his casual way, that Europe and the single European market alone had caused all that legislation. If one examines the figures, as I have done, and the pages and pages of Acts and statutory instruments dating from the 1980s, one finds that it was all there from the beginning.
The record shows the simple story: since 1979, the Government have issued on average 500 more pages of legislation a year than the Labour Government of the 1970s—and also on average 500 more pages a year on statutory instruments. That is the background to the issues that we are dealing with today.
Even more intriguing is the fact that, since 1985, there has been a deregulation unit inside the Department of Trade and Industry. Clearly, it has not been awfully successful, because in 1994 we apparently need a deregulation Bill.

Mr. Steen: If the hon. Gentleman says that there has been too much legislation, why does he disagree with a Bill that aims to reduce it? The fact that we got it wrong in the past surely means that he will now say that we should put it right. That is exactly what we are doing. How can he possibly oppose that?

Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that intervention, because I did not hear the President of the Board of Trade tell the story in quite that way. I did not hear him say, "Of course, we have rather screwed things up. We have got it all wrong since 1979. All those monstrous laws that we introduced were quite misguided, and we would now like to make a public apology for them. As a token of our remorse, we shall start moving in a new direction." In fact, I did not

hear much of an apology at all, despite the fact that, as we all know, all the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman talked about was derived from that period.
What happened when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wrote his recent pamphlet on deregulation for the Social Market Foundation? He plucked out 10 or 12 B ills to illustrate what he was talking about—and of course, they were all Bills from the past five years or so. That conveys the fundamental truth about what is happening.
The larger truth, which we must also establish, is that there are good and bad regulations: sensible regulations and regulations that are not sensible. It is possible to tell the story of regulation in a way that makes it sound rather different.
For example, what about the demands from small businesses for a late payment scheme? They argue for a new kind of regulation that they would find helpful. The work of the Small Business Research Trust shows that regulations can be a spur to innovation and competitiveness. The environmental technology industry argued this week that the Government's failure to take environmental regulation seriously was holding that industry back from winning new markets.
The food and drink industry was mentioned earlier, so I shall cite a recent statement by an organisation representing that industry:
Reducing the complexity of legislation through simplification and consolidation, together with ensuring that it is enforced to the same standard not only in the UK but also across the EC, would provide similar, if not greater, benefits to the industry than piecemeal changes to existing legislation.
The Government have not persuaded even those they claim are the beneficiaries of their efforts.
That is all simply a preliminary. The heart of the matter, and the issue of fundamental importance, is the manner in which the Government want to proceed. We are being offered a Bill entirely without precedent. Many Bills—a growing number in recent years—carry large order-making powers. Both the Education Act 1993 and the Child Support Act 1991 give their respective Secretaries of State more than 100 such powers. Since 1979, there have been 143 Acts relating to local government, and so on.
There is no question but that the development of order-making powers is a phenomenon associated with the present Government. However, what is new and without precedent about the Bill is that the Government are saying to the House of Commons, "We would like you to give Ministers blanket powers to make orders to repeal legislation." Anyone who knows anything about the way in which Parliament has examined such measures in the past will understand immediately why that is unacceptable.
In 1932, the Donoughmore committee said:
The use of the so-called 'Henry VIII Clause', conferring power on a Minister to modify the provisions of Acts of Parliament (hitherto limited to such amendments as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing the statute into operation) should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases, and should not be permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds".
Let us leap forward 60 years, because the House of Lords has taken an interest in the matter in recent times, to the House of Lords Scrutiny Committee, established in 1992. In its first report, it says:
In sum, the case for using Henry VIII clauses for updating lists, uprating for inflation and for making consequential and transitional provisions was recognised. In any event the Government should be expected to justify the use of such clauses as being necessary: they should not be used simply for convenience.


We are being offered a Bill for the convenience of Ministers, in contravention of everything that has ever been claimed about the relationship in the matter of legislation between the House of Commons and the Executive. Either the House says that that is fine, that we do not mind being rolled over like that, or we say that there is something fundamental going on here; and there is.
Deregulation never was much of a big idea. Indeed, it is a rather little idea. But the big idea that is going on is that Ministers can decide for themselves what to do in the matter of making orders, irrespective of normal parliamentary procedures. If hon. Members are prepared—particularly Conservative Members, because it is not, or should not be, a party matter—to accept and approve the first four clauses of the Bill, they are not, as they believe, lightening the burdens on industry and small businesses, but taking a major step towards the transfer of power permanently from the House of Commons to the Executive. That is precisely the choice.
Looking at the history of the House of Commons over the past 15 years—heaven knows, its esteem is low enough anyway—and the way in which it has consistently failed to stand up to the Executive, the promise of the scrutiny Committees as an offsetting device against the massive transfer of power looks small and pathetic here.
In the period since 1979, the Government have been defeated only seven times in the House of Commons. On two of those occasions, Members of Parliament ganged up on their pay and conditions; at other times it was to do with dogs and Sunday trading. The idea that somehow, through party-based Committees, the House of Commons will suddenly become, as the Prime Minister might say, "muscular" in relation to the Executive is a fraud and a delusion. This is a House of Commons matter. It is a parliamentary matter. It is a constitutional matter. It is a democratic matter.
One hundred years ago, Sir James Ferguson looked across the Chamber and said that he had heard many arguments which influenced his opinion, but never one which influenced his vote. I ask Conservative Members to reflect on that, to consider the importance of what they are being asked to approve in the Bill, and to support Parliament instead.

Mr. Michael Alison: My colleagues will be relieved to hear that I propose to make a particularly short speech, because I shall address myself to the shortest clause in the Bill—clause 17, which must be one of the shortest clauses of any legislation, by only one word overlapped into a two-line clause.
The clause totally deregulates weekday shopping. As one contemplates that tiny clause, one is bound to reflect on how great a fire may be set alight by one small spark. The scale of the total deregulation for all weekday shopping can be gleaned from the fact that it will potentially and realistically add about 22 hours—or 35 per cent.—of additional shopping time to the existing Monday-toSaturday shopping week.

Mr. Steen: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Alison: Perhaps I can illuminate my hon. Friend. There is an upside and a downside to the proposed change.
On the upside, there is no doubt—my hon. Friend will endorse this and add his weight and approval to it—that total deregulation of weekday shopping will add many more opportunities for shopping through the whole of the working day for many people.
Women who work normal hours in employment quite different from the retail industry will find it possible to shop with their families until 10 pm, and to do the kind of shopping in which, hitherto, on Sundays only many were forced to engage. There will be many more opportunities for shopping as a result of the deregulatory change. I warmly approve of and endorse that aspect of it.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the Minister, and Opposition Members will realise the downside to the change. I hope that my colleagues will use their imagination and brood a little about this.
The unregulated or deregulated shopping hours, both on Saturdays and, largely, on Sundays, will impose a colossal strain, but particularly on small shopkeepers. If a shop is run by a husband and wife, who may face Sunday opening as well, it will be difficult for them not to enter into competitive later opening hours. The strain of additional opening hours on small shopkeepers should not be overlooked.
I hasten to add that the potential pressure on shopworkers who are not shopowners to work long hours during the working day and perhaps at weekends should not be totally ignored as one contemplates the effect of deregulation in that area. I ask all hon. Members to reflect on the general shindy, noise and other aggravating factors of the typical working day for many homes and home owners throughout the country, where disturbance as a result of shopping already occurs during the working day, but tends to subside after normal closing hours.
Many residents in such pleasant residential precincts where there are shops, in places such as South Hams, Rugby, Hampstead, Hallam or Wyre Forest—just to draw a bow at venture—will be disturbed unexpectedly after normal closing hours by the fact that the shops there will be open until all hours. Some may be open until midnight, others until 1 am.

Mr. Steen: Throughout the night.

Mr. Alison: Some shops may indeed make a profession of opening throughout the night, although I doubt whether there will be any of that sort in South Hams.
The fact remains that many areas where the local population tolerate the coming and going, the shindy and general disturbance of shoppers in their streets during normal working hours, will find that extended indefinitely into all hours, including Sundays, if deregulation is carried in the Shops (Amendment) Bill.
We are rapidly approaching the time when, in the light of this welcome aspect of deregulation, we should look again seriously and deeply at the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Perhaps we should have a view to modifying and changing the permitted hours of opening on Sunday in the light of the proposals on weekday shopping.
I ask colleagues on both sides of the House to consider changing their position on Sunday trading in the light of the Bill. I am glad to have been able to make that short and simple point. I hope that I carry many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with me in urging that we consider Sunday shopping from a quite different perspective as a result of deregulation under the Bill.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: If the Bill were really about simple language and about bringing legislation up to date, as the President of the Board of Trade told us it was, we should all be on a one-line Whip. We would not be here debating a serious Bill, since we would all agree. In fact, the Bill is about democracy. As we are part of the democracy, we assume that Parliament drafts legislation in the public interest. The careful clause—by—clause consideration in Committee and in the other place is designed to fine-tune legislation, to protect the public, to prevent the misinterpretation of legislation and to close loopholes.
No Government, even one as misguided and incompetent as this one, would describe their own legislative programme as "a burden". This deregulation exercise has turned the democratic process on its head. The Government have taken provisions mainly designed to be a public safeguard out of a raft of legislation and renamed them "burdens on business". The provisions have been submitted not to public scrutiny but to the scrutiny of a task force of business interests; incidentally, the gender balance is four out of 65. The Bill then empowers Ministers to remove or to alter any provisions in primary or secondary legislation simply by statutory instrument, which is the minimum scrutiny that Parliament can give. It is astonishing that this undemocratic process has been led and driven by the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Steen: I have been following the hon. Lady's argument. If she would not act as we suggest and if she accepts that quite a bit of repeal is needed, how would she go about it?

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in one of his contributions on the issue, he made me think how the matter should be dealt with. He bemoaned the fact that village halls have to provide public toilets if they are to receive a public entertainment licence. They also have to provide public toilets that are suitable for physically disabled people. That is done by regulation. As there is no VAT on toilets for disabled people, every community hall in the country, as the hon. Gentleman mockingly said, is now building toilets that can be used only by disabled people. That is a way in which regulations can be used for the positive benefit of everyone, which is welcome. We would use regulations in a positive way. We would not rename public safeguards "burdens on business".
There are many issues about which we should be concerned, such as lorries going through London. Restrictions were imposed to protect air quality for Londoners. Clause 24 removes the need for lorries to have exemption permits to travel at night or at weekends; instead, guidelines will be issued to lorry drivers. Can one imagine a lorry driver, driven by his time-related bonus payment, continuing the ban voluntarily? With air quality-related diseases, such as asthma, increasing rapidly, do hon. Members really think that the people of London see that safeguard as a burden?
Let us consider school bus safety. A recent example in my constituency concerned a bus operator who carried 81 children to school on a single-decker. The public's reaction in my constituency is to protect the children and not to protect the bus operator's business. Yet the Bill removes

the requirement for public service vehicle operators to renew their licence with the traffic commissioners every five years.
The Department of Trade and Industry document "Cutting Red Tape" promises to
meet the Task Force's desire
for the
lightest possible regulatory regime
in waste disposal. The intention is to relax conditions, even those about pre-notifying authorities of the movement of hazardous waste. That is a further move from a statutory, enforced system towards a voluntary and self-monitored system. Do the public really want to weaken safeguards in that respect?
All the feedback that I get, especially from young people, shows that there is increasing concern about the environment and a desire to make a positive use of waste. The Select Committee on the Environment, of which I am a member, inquired into recycling and we picked up that enthusiasm. Any system of positive waste disposal, whether through heat recovery, recycling or energy recovery from landfill, requires careful management. The rubbishing of the word "regulation", which is a key element in any waste management strategy, will destroy that positive movement.
The task force recommends reducing the planning role of local authorities and the scope for planning gain. That is an amazing recommendation. The biggest planning problems that I have encountered stem from irresponsible developers and unauthorised development. Some developers know that the enforcement powers available to planning authorities are so weak and that the financial penalties are so severe if the authorities lose on appeal that they have nothing to fear.
A couple of cowboys in my constituency dumped a million tyres with no planning permission, just with a vague promise that they would buy a shredder when they had enough tyres. The pile of tyres caught light, resulting in a huge fire that threatened a vast area of community forest land and nearby communities. The penalty in court was a laughable £1,000 fine and 120 days of community service. Is it any wonder that the public are sceptical about the Government's "get tough" policies when public safety is treated so lightly?
The Bill will encourage the view, whether the Government like it or not, that anything goes if it is good for business and if there is money to be made. I quote the members of the Sheffield Trades Union Council. They said that they had to emphasise to us as Members of Parliament
the strength of feeling amongst trade union members who feel that should deregulatory legislation be placed on the statute book, then many workplaces would no longer be safe places in which to work.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady has gone through a catalogue of her favourite regulations. She has described the areas where she would not only not deregulate, but further regulate. Will she share with the nation the areas in which she would deregulate?

Mrs. Jackson: I believe that the public should be able to expect Parliament to regulate more strictly if public safety is at risk. There are various small regulations that are outdated and I am sure that they will be debated in Committee. I should be more than happy to deregulate in some areas. There is one matter on which I am very keen to deregulate—the ability of direct works departments of


local authorities to bid for tenders and to work for other authorities or private businesses as they like. That would do a great deal of good for local authorities.

Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Jackson: I should like to continue. One of the difficulties is that if, as a result of public consultation, a need emerges to strengthen the regulations and the regulatory regime, the Bill prevents the Minister from taking action. Clause 1 says that the Minister can set up a regulatory system only if it is less onerous than the existing regime.
At the heart of the proposed legislation is another fundamental attack on open government and public accountability. For example, clause 9 deals with information that companies are required to give to the. Office of Fair Trading. There are already provisions which require commercially sensitive information not to be open to the public, but business wants more secrecy. Can it be in the interests of the Government, given the recent business scandals, that even more is allowed to go on behind closed doors? In the end, the cost will be greater as scandals hit the headlines and Parliament and the public demand major inquiries.
In the past week, the Government have published "Charter News". Its lead story was, "Complaints—Why we should value them." That is a nice lead from the Government! Complaints depend on openness of operation so that people know their rights and have confidence in the regulations that protect them.
The Bill is riddled with more suggestions of contracting out, one of which, I was disturbed to see, relates to business statistics. I was interested in a report on business attitudes to statistical inquiries, which was placed in the Library only the week before last. It showed that if the request for information came from a private consultant, only one in four businesses said that they would offer any information, whereas only 4 per cent. of businesses would decline to give the information if the request came from a Government Department. If we are aiming for positive regulation, we shall need regulators and they will need accurate information. If the Government base their policy decisions on information collected by organisations that have only three quarters of the facts, the Government will be wrong at least 50 per cent. of the time. Perhaps that has already been proved by the Government more than we care to say.
Businesses are not always right about what is in their own interest and not always right about what is in the public interest. They look to the short term—they have to—and to the next year's profit, but it is the Government's job to see beyond, to the next century and to pass laws that will bring lasting prosperity and jobs. Regulations should be seen as a positive way in which to bring that about. Of course, we must consult businesses, but we must also consult the other organisations that represent public health, environmental protection, health and safety and local government. They also have at the root of their function the need to take a long-term view.
We should be concerned that the deregulation outlined in the Bill endangers the very substance of democracy and accountability in the country.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate on an important Bill. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) because it would be difficult to have a greater contrast between two approaches. The hon. Lady and many of her colleagues, as somebody said about the Bourbons on the restoration of the French monarchy, have learnt nothing and have forgotten nothing. That is certainly true of the Labour party on this subject.
The Government had promised a wide-ranging, detailed and innovative Bill and have produced just that. The Bill covers a wide area and, at a glance, it covers most areas of government and public regulation. It is even more interesting to consider some of the further improvements which will occur in due course, by regulation or otherwise. In the words of President Reagan, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
As the Bill's title refers to regulation and contracting out, it reinforces our commitment to cornerstone policies which have guided us for many years. The Bill seeks to underpin the enterprise culture for business, based on a view of Government as a help to wealth creation and not a hindrance, which the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Hillsborough showed. The view proposes that private sector business, and not Government, creates wealth and we must create, and in some cases modify, the framework in which that business wealth creation takes place.

Mr. Spearing: Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) are dealing with the issue seriously. But why is the limitation of creation of wealth justified if that creation of immediate wealth, especially for a short period shown in the balance sheet, means the undermining of long-term public health or of the long-term interests of the whole country? Surely that should be an area for proper regulation, even if, for the short term, productivity is thereby marginally lower.

Mr. Waterson: At a stroke, the hon. Gentleman underlines the basic misunderstanding of Opposition Members of the point of the Bill and the regulations that will flow from it in due course. We are not proposing a completely unregulated free-for-all in British business. What we recognise, and what the hon. Gentleman will never recognise no matter how many times I tell him, is that Bitish business men and women do not need a mass of contradictory regulations, many of which do not serve the purposes which he rightly mentioned.

Mr. Spearing: Of course I recognise them.

Mr. Waterson: I must get on.
I am delighted that we began with some 3,500 regulations and the task forces have published 655 proposals, 250 of which have been accepted in full and 280 of which are still under review. Much of the Bill, which underlines the point that I made to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), seeks to return common sense to some activities and to remove wholly archaic rules, some of which should have been swept away years ago. If it proposes nothing else, I would support the Bill because it seeks to remove burdens from our business and public life, which weigh down business men and administrators, increase costs for everyone, including the


consumer, and in most cases benefit nobody. Surely, it makes sense to allow shopkeepers, for example, to decide if they will close early one day a week.
We must see the Bill in its full context. As I see it, it is a down payment, just the beginning and, perhaps the first wave. It is part of the Government's rolling programme of deregulation. The second wave is set out in the document "Cutting Red Tape", in which there are another 29 measures waiting in the wings to be tackled. It will come as an enormous relief to many hon. Members that one thing proposed in that list of secondary measures is the abolition of the so-called long pull offence—the repeal of section 165 of the Licensing Act 1964, under which, amazingly, it is a criminal offence to serve somebody with more alcohol than he or she requested.
I am also pleased to see the foreshadowing of the introduction of double summer time, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred. That is a subject close to my heart, on which I introduced a ten-minute Bill and which I know would be welcomed by many.
I am secretary to the Back-Bench tourism committee and I also represent an area which is perhaps the prime seaside resort in the entire nation. Along with other hon. Members, I spoke in a debate in July on tourism and deregulation. I am delighted that so many of the general principles that were set out in that debate are contained in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been consulting other Departments as well as the Department of National Heritage, will be able to help to free one of our vital industries—tourism—from many burdensome regulations.

Mr. Steen: I understand that there were 300 or 400 proposals for tourism deregulation—I do not have the exact figure. Is not my hon. Friend a little disappointed that only one deregulation proposal is contained in the Bill?

Mr. Waterson: I would be disappointed if I were not utterly convinced that many of those matters will be addressed in what I call the second, third and subsequent waves.
I refer hon. Members to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage on 27 July 1993 in which he gave an interim report on the work of his Department in examining unnecessary regulations affecting the tourism industry. At that time—presumably, things have improved even more since then—he identified more than 80 pieces of legislation and regulations affecting the industry. He covered areas such as food safety and hygiene—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the President referred to that as a matter for continued review—fire safety, package travel regulations, the electricity at work regulations, public entertainment licensing, tourism signposting and price display regulations. Those are all matters for ongoing review not only by the Department of Trade and Industry but by the Department of National Heritage.
I quote my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary:
The preliminary overall conclusion of my review is that the complex proliferation of regulations is unquestionably having a damaging effect on the tourism sector. This should now cease. I intend it to do so."—[Official Report, 27 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 770.]
I am sure that we all support him in that endeavour.
It is worth remembering that, just as it is possible to have poor regulation, it is equally possible to have poor deregulation. One example that comes to mind is the Use

Classes Order 1987, which the Department of the Environment is good enough to refer to as its contribution to deregulation. I cannot dwell on that issue at great length; suffice to say it has caused a phenomenon in many seaside resorts around the country with a great mushroom-like growth in Department of Social Security hostels.

Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a report before the Department of the Environment at present on a national survey that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and I conducted on the effects of DSS hostels? We have asked the Department to look closely at changing the Use Classes Order. Apparently, ministerial advisers have said that much of our evidence is anecdotal. I can assure my hon. Friend that the evidence is not anecdotal.
In Scarborough last year, we had three murders. We are not used to murders in Scarborough, but two of those murders related strictly to DSS hostels and the activities that take place there. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a solution to the problem in the palm of their hands by changing the Use Classes Order as soon as possible?

Mr. Waterson: I am well aware of the vigorous campaign being led by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on this issue. Suffice to say—because it is not a central issue in this debate—it is a perfect example of how poor deregulation, without being thought through at the time, has brought about a truly disgraceful result: local authorities have no control over whether hotels and guest houses convert to DSS hostels and where they are located. I look forward to that and many other matters being addressed in the second, third and subsequent waves of deregulation.
There is an irresistible tide at work here to increase the volume of deregulation as we go along. It is right—to that extent, I agree with Labour Members—that these matters should be examined carefully and closely and should be the subject of careful and detailed consultation with those who are affected and those who legitimately have a view.
I welcome what is in the Bill, as well as what is not in the Bill but is yet to come. I hope that the bonfire of regulations has been well and truly lit tonight. I know that my right hon. Friend the President and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will keep the bonfire going. If they are ever in danger of running out of suggestions, we will continue to keep them supplied with kindling. I fear that, unfortunately, the Opposition parties will merely remain jeering on the sidelines of this great bonfire, praying for rain.

Mr. Richard Burden: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in a debate where the phrase used perhaps more than any other concerns the undesirability of "burdens". I must tell the House that burdens are not always undesirable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Tory Members may disagree—I do not know.
The Bill, like so many other aspects of the Government, is not really all that it seems and is not all that it is claimed to be. Of course, it comes from the team that promised low taxes and brought us massive tax rises. It is from the team


that said that the national health service was safe in its hands, but which brought us bed closures and cancelled operations. It is from the team that said that it was the party of law and order, but which has managed to preside over a massive rise in the crime rate.
The fact that the Bill is not all that it seems should not take us too much by surprise because we are getting used to it. When this team came to power in 1979, it promised an expansion of individual freedom. However, in the years that it has been in office, it has presided over the greatest centralisation of power in the hands of the Executive. That is precisely at the root of what the Bill is all about.
Ministers have said that the Bill will liberate businesses from excessive regulation. Undoubtedly, that is a legitimate description of some aspects of the Bill, but many of its provisions, and some measures hidden behind its words on the paper, have a greater implication. Rather than liberating any businesses from excessive regulation, they will remove from citizens the protection of law where that protection is vital to their interests and their quality of life. Perhaps we should not be surprised that most of the danger of the Bill is lurking behind what is written on the paper.
Ministers will say that there is nothing to worry about; they have promised us scrutiny committees. Indeed, they have established a permanent deregulation unit to examine those sectors where red tape can best be removed. Undoubtedly, they will promise that there will be a proper, independent and objective examination. I am a little sceptical about exactly how objective that permanent deregulation unit is likely to be. When we look at who heads that unit, we find the name of Mr. Francis Maude, head of the global privatisation unit of Morgan Stanley and a former Tory Minister.
Some regulations are outdated and unnecessary. As we have heard, many of those regulations were introduced by the Government. There are pointers in the Bill to what its implementation—when we get past the Committee and Report stages and Third Reading, it is operating and the Minister has the power that he is seeking—is likely to mean for citizens and their rights in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) referred to the likely effect of the Bill on the Companies Acts. We have been told that there will no longer be a need to register the business occupation, nationality or particulars of other directorships at Companies House. We have been told that that matter is not important and it is just red tape.
Those of us who are interested in piecing together certain matters think that they are of some importance to our citizens. Those matters include how trade deals have become mixed up with overseas aid and who is involved in those deals and how certain directors of companies that manage to get an amazing amount of the Government's overseas contracts also happen to turn up as the chairs of quangos and NHS trusts. Those are matters of legitimate public interest and they should be scrutinised. Removing the requirement for companies to be honest and open and to log such information at Companies House is important and does affect open government and democracy.
Clause 19, which deals with the provision to repeal any local building regulation, is open ended, but contains nothing about the need to maintain standards. When the Bill was first mooted, there were reports in the press of the

great fear that there would also be a wholesale sweeping away of health and safety regulations. Ministers backed off rapidly at that point, saying that there was nothing to worry about and that there would be no reduction in standards.
There are some dangers contained in the words in the clause, although there are not many specific references to which health and safety regulations are to be repealed, but let us be under no illusions about what the Bill means. Ministers will tell us that all kinds of outdated and unduly complicated health and safety regulations have been replaced and updated since 1975, and indeed that has happened.
The Bill differs from previous legislation in an interesting way. All previous legislation has provided for the replacement of health and safety regulations, when replacement is deemed to be the right thing to do. Rather than replacement or reference to standards, the Bill provides only for wholesale repeal of such regulations. That is not obvious in the Bill, but it is sheltering behind the words on the page.
The Bill contains the provision that employers will be removed from the cumbersome burden of having to agree with, or even consult, their workers on how selection for redundancy can take place. Under the present legislation, an employer can argue why there should be a departure from normal practice on selection for redundancy. If the employer has good grounds for that, he can select for redundancy away from the normal procedures.

Mr. Sykes: As an employer, I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an example of how frustrating the process can be. I ran an oil depot in Leeds for many years, from which we delivered heating oil. Due to the rules and regulations—in other words, the last in, first out convention—I was unable to sack a driver who was probably one of the laziest men ever to draw breath. Unfortunately, the fellows who did work hard had to leave because they were last in.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps have studied industrial relations laws a little more. If it turned out that he had a lazy employee, my understanding of the law is that that is a disciplinary issue, and not a redundancy issue.

Mr. Sykes: rose—

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman can come back at me when I am finished. No law or regulation says that redundancy has to take place on the basis of last in, first out, although such a convention is often agreed between employers and employees. Any employer or any representative of the employees can suggest a different way of selecting for redundancy, but the important thing is that the process must be fair. The employee must have the right to test the process at an industrial tribunal.
If the hon. Gentleman felt that it was fair to select for redundancy someone whom he felt was lazy, he had every right to try that. He would have to prove his case in front of an industrial tribunal. If he won it—I think that that would be unlikely in the case that he outlined—good luck to him. It is not appropriate for the law to be changed so that an employer can suggest the person he wants for redundancy, even if it is for a disciplinary matter. It is not appropriate for the employee to be denied the right even to go to an industrial tribunal to contest that decision. That would seem to be the wrong use of the law. Such a use of


law should not necessarily take us by surprise, as the Government have already been whittling away at the protections on redundancy.

Mr. Sykes: I do not wish to labour the point, but in the 1970s employers followed the convention to which I referred. I do not know how many people the hon. Gentleman has employed in his life, but I have employed 600 in my time. I have found it extremely difficult to prove a case such as the one to which I referred.
A driver might say that a wing-mirror had gone on the lorry that morning, or perhaps that his tyres had been let down the night before. Those little things built up gradually over time and added up to the problem. I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman, who has probably never employed people on the shop floor, why employers must be able to employ people who work hard for them rather than keeping people who do not.

Mr. Burden: I hope that, in years to come, employees who are considering whether it is worth while joining a trade union take the time to read that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. If ever they needed an example of the kind of attitude that underlines the value of trade unions, it is that one. I hope to goodness that the hon. Gentleman will not be in any position of responsibility at the Department of Employment in the future, given his attitudes to the rights of employees.
We should not be surprised by the Government's attempts to whittle away the rights of employees. A few weeks ago, I tabled a quite innocent question to the Department of Employment asking whether a particular employer who had announced redundancies had notified the Department, as is required by legislation. I also asked, if he had done so, on what date the employer had notified the Department. That does not seem to be too much of a big deal.
The answer that I received was that information as to whether an employer has obeyed the provisions of the statute is confidential. That is the type of mentality which exists at the moment. It is a matter of confidentiality whether an employer abided by the basic principles of employment law. Yet, when it comes to the apparent rights of an employer to sack people for a disciplinary matter, using the basis of redundancy, the law can be changed to permit that. That seems to be quite wrong.
The Bill has nothing to do with rights. If it had, its provisions on employment agencies would perhaps have been different. The Bill says that those agencies will be freed from the need to have a licence, but where is the acknowledgement of the rights of the employees of those agencies to decent terms and conditions? There is not a word about that.
There is the deregulation of markets and the abolition of traditional franchise rights, but where is the recognition of the rights of consumers to be freed from being sold shoddy and, in some cases, dangerous goods? There is relaxation of waste controls. It has been said that probably, in years to come, the National Rivers Authority—itself a candidate for market testing and privatisation—will be able to relax consent on effluent discharges. Where is the right of citizens to have a wholesome supply of water and decent quality rivers? There are the proposals for the freeing-up of the controls on third-party mortgages. That is said to be lifting a burden from businesses, but if the Bill were about

red tape, it might be saying something else. The proposal on mortgages will not allow one extra home to be built. It will not house one extra homeless family.
If the Government are interested in lifting burdens and deregulating in housing matters, I suggest that they lift the regulations on capital receipts so that local authorities can build the homes that people need instead of being hidebound by the red tape that the Government impose on them.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burden: I have already given way enough and ti me is moving on. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken and I am sure that he will speak again.
We also have the provision on the head of beer. It is proposed that breweries will be able to charge for froth. That is hardly surprising in a Bill that is itself full of froth.

Mr. Pawsey: Like Banks's?

Mr. Burden: I shall not mention Banks's, although the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will understand my interest in Banks's as he comes from the same region of the country as me.
Some regulations are petty and some regulations undoubtedly need to be removed by due process, proper debate and so on, but that will not happen as a result of the Bill. If Conservative Members are interested in deregulating and lifting burdens on business, why do they say nothing about statutory sick pay? Why do not they want to lift that real burden on business that they voted in?
Conservative Members expressed surprise when I suggested in an intervention that the absence of decent nursery provision in Britain was a burden on business. It should not take them by surprise. Do not they realise that the absence of nursery education means that working parents have to give up work when they should not have to do so and acts against the rights of women to be employed? That is a burden on business.

Mr. Pawsey: How much would it cost?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many sedentary interventions and conversation pieces.

Mr. Burden: That burden on business should be examined by the Government, but there is no reference whatever to it in the Bill. Conservative Members patently fail to understand that burden.
The Bill is not about deregulation. Excessive regulation is not the main problem with the Government. It is not the main problem with Britain. One of the main problems with Britain is the lack of democracy, which the Government have furthered by centralising power in the hands of the Executive. That has undermined what democracy existed at the workplace, in the neighbourhood and at local level. The Government have systematically stripped away from elected local authorities the right to decide things locally. They have handed those powers over to Ministers or quangos. The Government should deal with that lack of democracy. They can best start doing so by examining some of their own practices.
I do not see that it will further democracy—indeed, it will undermine democracy—to pass a Bill that strengthens the hand of Ministers not only in sweeping away petty regulations but in sweeping away, by ministerial order and with cursory consultation, any piece of primary legislation


that they care to sweep away. Anything more threatening to democracy is difficult to imagine. That is why the Bill is wrong and needs to be opposed. That is why we desperately need a Government who are interested in increasing the rights of citizens, whether employees or employers, to have a say, rather than a Government who are interested merely in the right of Ministers to create and destroy regulations in the interests of their friends.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I suspect that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) would say that any Bill introduced in the House was about democracy. The Bill is not about democracy any more than anything else. It is about reducing the amount of rules and regulations that affect our lives. If I may make a poor joke, it is to reduce the burden of laws on life in Britain.
Life has become ever more complicated, frenetic, pressurised and stressed. More people have high blood pressure and heart attacks. Cancer is on the increase. There are more broken relationships. One in 80 marriages ended in divorce in 1961, compared with one in nine in 1991. In 1991, three in 10 children were born outside wedlock. We live in a society under pressure. The stress of modern life is intolerable. For many, it is not only inescapable but unbearable. The stress of modern life leads to social irregularities, emotional distortions and physical ilness and does nothing to enhance the quality of life.
As if the problems of living were not enough, over-officialdom and over-bureaucracy make things 10 times worse. As a nation, we have indulged in too many rules and regulations, many of which are simply not necessary. Who is to blame for all this? The answer is that all of us here are responsible. This place right here has made those rules and regulations. We are a huge law-making machine churning out legislation in the same way as Wall's produces sausages and Mars churns out Mars bars. It is a relentless, ongoing process.
What do we say to each other when we pass each other in the House? We say, "I have just written you a note", or "There is a letter on the board", or "Were you lucky enough in the ballot to secure a Bill?" The Bill turns into legislation. The whole building, with its thousands of support staff, is focused on thinking up ideas—good ideas—for more laws which directly result in an increase in bureaucracy and officialdom to implement them.
In the hurly-burly of politics, we pass too many laws that are not carefully scrutinised or thought out. Worse still, they are badly implemented by insensitive and often untrained public officials. If many of our civil servants ran private businesses, they would have gone bust years ago. Like the sun trying to shine through an increasing layer of cloud, small enterprises and individual citizens simply cannot see their way through. Rather than facilitating and improving the efficiency of the country, legislation filters its strengths and reduces its efficiency.
The Bill is so important because it is the first major attempt by the Government to slay the red tape dragon. The maxim that man learns nothing from history is often proved true, but the Bill shows the Government learning from history. Throughout the ages, Governments have

repealed legislation. There is nothing new about repealing legislation. It is repealed either because it has proved unworkable or because it has simply outlived its shelf life.
In the new world in which we live, legislation has grown like Topsy and thus requires more drastic pruning. Those in the House who are gardeners know that shrubs grow irregularly. To keep trees and shrubs in prime condition, pruning is essential. So, too, with a mob of deers—which is a west country phrase—or a pod of seals. Culling is essential for their survival and health.
In 1989, there were five times more pages of legislation than in 1979. Brussels churned out five volumes of legislation before we joined the European Community. It now churns out 37 volumes each year. However, the cause is not simply too many Eurocrats in Brussels. Directives from the Commission are often sensible and come to Britain suggesting a simple way of dealing with the problem. Once the directive hits Whitehall, bevies of officials are stirred into action, taking time and effort to interpret and rewrite the directive.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend to expand that argument. He said that the regulations are often helpful, but the European Community passes general regulations to member nations' Governments for them to implement in detail. While the regulations may therefore seem helpful on the surface, they are the ramp by which all such regulations flow through.

Mr. Steen: I am not sure that that was terribly helpful, but it is useful to hear a diferent point of view. The directives come in a simple form and officialdom in Whitehall interprets and rewrites them. Those officials are rather like a horde of ants on a crumb.
I do not like to talk theoretically and I always give the House some practical examples. My first example is the private water supply directive. There are about 650 private water supplies in South Hams. One is to an old house called Lud house in the little village of Ermington, where my constituent Gordon Johnston has lived for many years and has enjoyed rude health—as did his father and grandfather and his children. He enjoyed drinking from his private water supply, but along came an environmental health officer—doing a perfectly responsible job—who told him, after testing it, that the water was not terribly good. Mr. Johnston said that he had enjoyed it all his life—as his father and grandfather had—and asked what was wrong with it. The officer said that it had too many nasty things in it and instructed that some chemical be poured into that large source of water to clean it up. Mr Johnston has never been the same since—he was a happy and a healthy man, but now he does not like the taste of his water. He has never felt well since and nor have his family. I hope that the environmental health officer, who charges about £50 or £100 a time to do the job, will not be so enthusiastic in future.
That illustrates part of the problem. We have created too many rules and regulations, which make people feel quite ill.

Mr. Spearing: Can the hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, was it an indictable offence for the constituent to continue to drink his water? Secondly, was the charge for the unwanted treatment and inspection, which was perhaps statutory, the result of any legislation to


put charges on local government services which has been enacted since 1979 and voted for enthusiastically by Conservative Members?

Mr. Steen: I cannot answer those questions without some notice, but I do not dispute that we Conservatives may be responsible. We have a lot to answer for. That is why I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is listening so conscientiously and enthusiastically. Conservative Members and my hon. Friend the Minister are concerned—as, I am glad to say, is the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If we have made mistakes and been too free with some of the directives we should put it right.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The key point is that all the legislation that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is so concerned about was passed before I became a Minister. Things will be very different now.

Mr. Steen: The House will be greatly reassured by my hon. Friend's interjection. I always find it reassuring when he is sitting on the Front Bench.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Newham, South will both be concerned about the many Acts of Parliament that have created self-financing regulatory authorities, or SEFRAs. They are new animals with powers to create rules and regulations, charge for licences and fine for enforcement. Rather like a Hitchcock film, the Government have created self-perpetuating organisations which are branching out all over the place with new laws and an increasing number of officials who get in our hair and into all aspects of life.
SEFRAs are the most dangerous of animals. They are the 1990 equivalent of the quango, but with real teeth. The Financial Services Act 1986, the Food Safety Act 1990, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the National Rivers Authority and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service are all SEFRAs. They have armies of officials, are funded by charges which have resulted from their rule-making powers and they demand compliance and threaten penalties for non-compliance. I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of SEFRAs.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steen: No, the hon. Gentleman spoke for 18·5 minutes and that was 18·5 minutes too long.
Changing attitudes among public officials is a crucial facet of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister must deal with the following question. I do not think that he will find it too embarrassing. His Department has 11,389 officials. What are they all doing? If it has a deregulation unit, should it not be studying those officials and asking whether there are not too many of them? We also have to change the attitude of the Opposition. I hope that all hon. Members present will help the Minister and show him where he has gone wrong and how to put things right.
The Bill speaks of educating inspectors to make them more sensitive to business realities and to help them to apply a common sense approach in their work. That is long overdue.
Perhaps you will allow me to tell another story, Madam Deputy Speaker, about Mr. Wheeler of Harbertonford, who is registered disabled and, I fear, hobbles with a stick. He went into Totnes—my market town, which you know well, Madam Deputy Speaker—just before Christmas to get some medicine because his wife was not well.

Unfortunately, he jumped into her car, which does not have a "disabled" badge, and parked it where he should not have done. When he came out of the shop he got a ticket. He is a registered disabled person and has a disabled badge and a clock, but he got into the wrong car. A very apologetic parking warden, who knew Mr. Wheeler, said that he was awfully sorry as he had not recognised the car or realised what he was doing. He issued the ticket, but said that he was sure that if Mr. Wheeler rang up it would be cancelled.
The attitude of the public officials to whom Mr. Wheeler explained the situation was less understandable. They clearly had no humanity or sympathy. The official in Plymouth told him that it was his own fault for parking without a disabled badge, which he knew—although he did not expect to be told what he already knew. The official also said that
he seemed to be full of self pity and looking for … sympathy
when he asked for the fine to be cancelled. As a result of my intervention, the chief constable of Devon stepped in, but it took his intervention to get the charge cancelled. That is wrong and it should never have happened.

Mr. Pawsey: Well done—a good Member of Parliament.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is right.
Over-zealous environmental health officers are causing immense and excessive costs, according to a survey published recently by the Food Hygiene Bureau and reported in January's edition of Free House, which I know that hon. Members read avidly. The survey of 300 west country business properties, where work had been carried out during the past two years as a result of action by environmental health officers, showed that there had been a 25 per cent. overspend—that is, over and above what they would have had to pay for the minimum legal requirement. The survey uncovered the fact that out of a total expenditure of £445,000—about £1,500 per property—£113,000 was for items that were not legally enforceable, such as fly screening of windows, fitting vapour-proof fluorescent lights and providing additional hand washing facilities, which might be helpful to Lady Macbeth but are not helpful to small companies.
It is not surprising that a visit from the environmental health officer is enough to strike fear into even the best managed kitchens, which is "right" according to the chairman of the Health and Hygiene Council, who goes on to say that,
Heavy fines, closure or even prison can result from violation of the environmental health laws.
That sort of bullying attitude needs to be purged from organisations that were established to serve the public, not to crucify them. Only when the zealots have been weeded out will common sense prevail.
Quite simply, the Bill is about helping us to recover our efficiency. The principal means of doing that will be by diverting, reducing or getting rid of the quagmire of rules and regulations, and the accompanying officials, which divert our time, effort and energy—particularly in small businesses—from getting on with the job of running businesses, providing a service for the customer and creating wealth and employment for the nation.
The Bill will ensure that the laws enhance our quality of life, making the way that we live richer, more valuable and more purposeful, with less time spent on the senseless activity of filling in forms, making phone calls to officials


who are never there, paying bills for services that we do not want, and turning up in court for failure to comply with notices that have been served.
I should have thought that the Labour party would hail the Bill as one of the best measures that the Government have ever introduced—but not at all. The Labour party is a notoriously slow learner and has described the Bill as hopelessly out of step. I am not sure with whom it is out of step. It is probably out of step with public officialdom. It is certainly out of step with bureaucracy, but one must remember that the Labour party is the country's custodian of bureaucracy and the champion of red tape: it believes in the cause of overmanning and public officialdom as fervently as Arthur and his knights chased the holy grail.
If the Bill achieves nothing else, it will make politicians and, I hope, officials think twice—if not thrice—before embarking on the merry-go-round of passing more laws. Less regulation does not mean that we shall live in a more dangerous, unhealthy or unsafe society. On the contrary, it will result in giving greater legitimacy to the political process if people know that the Government pass only a minimum of legislation, expecting the public to exercise common sense. We want legislation emanating from Westminster and Whitehall which the public knows will be sensitively and efficiently administered and the officials put in charge of it intelligent, experienced and flexible. We must fell the current forest of ludicrous rules and regulations in which many of us get permanently lost.
Nothing undermines the credibility of Parliament more than the passing of too many laws. Too much law shows an indiscipline in Government and an inability to weed out what is unnecessary. Reducing the number of rules and regulations will help to put back an element of common sense into the political system. So next time any of us on either side of the House talk about changing the law or introducing a new Bill, I suggest that we should swallow our words, because more laws are the enemy of the people and of our traditional British way of life.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation until 9 o'clock.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to follow the witty speech of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), but his speech and mine will show the contrast in approach between the two sides of the House.
I oppose the Bill because I have grave reservations about how existing legislation will be amended. I am also fundamentally opposed to two main areas of the Bill, particularly deregulation of health and safety legislation and of market franchise rights. Deregulation in those areas will not improve the quality of life, but will be detrimental to it.
The frightening thing about the Bill is that it is ill-conceived. It will not only be detrimental to ordinary people's quality of life but will impact on businesses in a generally detrimental way. The exercise has been presented as a way to widen business opportunity, whereas it cloaks a crude political device to justify deregulation, particularly of health and safety legislation.
The architects of the Bill say that it is essential to wipe away the archaic legislation that has built up on the statute book. In reality, however, the Minister knows that it is much more, especially concerning health and safety. I believe that there is a hidden agenda. Clause 27 will allow the Government to make way for 19th century working practices. Some companies—albeit only a small number—will be able to create the very worst of working conditions.
The seven sectoral task groups—STGs—set up to examine the individual regulations are expected to move with extreme haste in identifying those regulations which, it is argued, impose a disproportionate cost on business. In reality, evidence points to the fact that the regulations are being subjected to a superficial examination. On 20 July last year, the Secretary of State for Employment announced that the Health and Safety Commission would examine proposals to revoke 30 sets of regulations. When the Minister winds up the debate this evening, he may be able to say how the 30 sets of regulations were identified and evaluated when, at the time of the Secretary of State's announcement, they had not even been examined by the STGs.
The real burden of the health and safety review will be borne by the victims of occupational accidents and industrial disease. Health and Safety Executive figures estimate that, over the period of the review, 586 people will have been killed in British industry; 194,579 people will have suffered major injuries at work; and 6,355 people will have been diagnosed as suffering from industrial disease. That is the carnage taking place in British industry. The overall cost to employers of accidents and ill health is estimated to be between £4 billion and £9 billion. The cost to society is put at between £10 billion and £15 billion. The Government should ensure that firms comply with the law rather than deregulate health and safety legislation. In that way, more accidents would be prevented.
The other major area of concern to me is the deregulation of market franchise rights under clauses 21, 22 and 23. Currently, many local authorities have market franchise rights, which means that a rival market cannot be set up within 6⅔miles of the local authority market.
Conservative Members have said that the deregulation exercise will free up trade, but it presents a threat to market franchise rights because local authorities have provided good conditions for market traders. They are motivated primarily not by profit but by the wish to provide a service to the community. The surplus that accrues to some local authorities is used, to give financial support to the general rate fund so that the entire community benefits from the operation. The protection of markets by the franchise rights has been wisely and responsibly used, to the benefit of markets and the community. It does not restrict trade, as some Conservative Members seem to believe. The removal of that protection will effectively provide an opportunity to anyone to operate a market in direct competition with the market already established.
Hon. Members should think about that for a moment. It will result in a proliferation of markets and car boot sales around towns. It will siphon trade away from town centres to the detriment of urban communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I have launched a campaign to save market franchise rights. I urge Conservative Members who have


not already done so to sign early-day motion 84 to support the campaign. If they do not vote against the Bill tonight, I urge them at least to abstain.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have heard many constructive comments from Conservative Members. In general, they have fully supported the Bill, although they have flagged one or two matters of concern. We have also heard some charming vignettes, such as that from my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who told us about the tottering punter from Totness. With his inimitable superhuman assiduity, he solved his problem, and no doubt he will have the support of the entire village.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) told us about a lorry driver. He said how idle, indolent and lazy he was, and that he was now a Labour Member of Parliament.
My right hon. Friends the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) also made constructive speeches.
We have also heard a number of speeches from the Opposition, including the eloquent contribution from the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). The speeches of the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) were articulate, but they are living in the dark ages.
The Opposition oppose every measure designed to encourage managers to manage their firms and to cut businesses loose. They are the enemies of the self-employed and small business men, and they approached the debate in a thoroughly negative manner.
It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is the Minister responsible for deregulation. He has thrown himself into the task with tremendous enthusiasm. I remember him as a deregulator many years ago, when we were both at the same educational establishment in the Fens. He once deregulated a pile of crockery.
My hon. Friend has matured since then. He deserves his post, and is moving from strength to strength. I am certain that the Bill will be a success, largely because of his determination and will power, and he has our support.
It is fair to say that, to some extent, the Government's policy on small businesses lost its direction in the late 1980s. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said that, during a recession we over-regulate small businesses, but I consider that the reverse has occurred.
In the mid-1980s, we had a vibrant small business policy under Sir David Trippier and Lord Young. The deregulation initiative was given a great deal of prominence, and much was achieved in terms of lifting the burden on small firms and encouraging the supply-side economy.
When the economy picked up, unemployment fell and growth took off, we forgot about small firms and tended to give too much leeway to pressure groups that wanted more regulation on such matters as the environment, health and safety and transport. We gave in because the economy was strong, there was growth, and businesses could stand extra regulation without jeopardising jobs.
During the recession, it took the current President of the Board of Trade to redirect our small firms policy". The past two Budgets contained a number of important measures geared to help small businesses dealing with audit requirement, VAT and the business expansion scheme mark two. The Bill is in addition to those measures, and it is particularly welcome.
We have to redirect our small firms policy. Our economy will not move forward with the rapidity it should unless small firms are in the vanguard of wealth creation, entrepreneurial initiative and, above all, job creation.
There are a number of medium-sized businesses in my constituency, many of which are doing very well. Recently, we had the bad news that British Sugar is to close its sugar beet factory at King's Lynn. However, the new supply-side environment in the economy means that the conditions are right for small firms to get going, for start-ups and for existing small firms to take on more people. I should put on record my appreciation of the work of the West Norfolk enterprise agency, which, over the years, has helped a large number of people.
I must mention one small element of concern. I have heard that the new business development centre, which will be part of the business link, is to receive funds from the Department of Trade and Industry.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is now in his place. The other day, I spoke to a small business man in my constituency. The manager of Sainsbury in King's Lynn was also concerned about the enterprise agency, but, as the borough council and the DTI are redirecting their support to the business development centre, there must be a question mark over its future. I hope that it will become part of the development centre, to provide advice on start-ups to people who want to know the nitty-gritty, instead of information that would be more applicable to companies that have found their feet and want to expand.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say a few words about the future role of enterprise agencies and how they will fit into business development centres. The Bill is about deregulation and helping small firms, and one mechanism for doing that is the enterprise agency network.
Small businesses want a strong economy and falling interest rates—I welcome today's fall of 0·25 per cent. They want corporation tax and small companies tax to remain the lowest in Europe. They want inflation kept very low. They also want a number of measures that only a Conservative Government can provide, and the Bill is one such measure.
The Government have done a great deal to support the supply side and, if we get it right, the Bill will be the icing on the cake. However, we have to be conscious of the conditions in Britain that are attracting foreign investment.
Why are we getting roughly 40 per cent. of all the inward investment into the EC? Out of the top 25 firms in Europe, why are a staggering 14 British? I find that quite remarkable. We have heard much about BMW taking over Rover, but out of the top 25 firms in Europe, only four are German. We should be proud of our achievements and shout them from the roof tops. The miseries among the Opposition only run the country down.
We have an opportunity to move forward into sustained growth, but we have to be careful about our policy towards Europe. The Bill encapsulates the Government's intention to do all they can to lift the burdens, and to remove petty regulations and other burdens on business.
We must not fall for the lure of some of the federal ideas that resulted from the Maastricht treaty—parts of which I support, particularly those relating to subsidiarity. The one provision that would undo a great deal would be the move towards a single currency. That would re-erect at the centre of Europe the power to issue directives and regulations and increase the burden on business.
Having given that warning, I urge the Government to get on with their policies and let businesses manage their own affairs. We in Britain have a tremendous amount of initiative and entrepreneurial verve and expertise and we must allow people to create jobs and wealth. The Bill will be the icing on the cake, and I support it.

Mr. John Heppell: Like the President of the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) talked a great deal but said very little about deregulation. We heard about small businesses, a federal Europe and the exchange rate mechanism, but we did not hear very much about the Bill.
I, too, have to depart from the Bill to some extent, as I am worried not so much by what it says as about what it does not say. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Government do not have any proposals for tourism, but that these will come later, and that other fields will be covered in the second, third and subsequent waves of deregulation.
It is quite clear that we are not talking just about the 250 proposals to which the Government have already agreed—in most cases without consulting any consumer or safety groups—or about the 280 proposals still being considered, the details of some of which we do not know.
We are not bothered about any of the 605 proposals. What bothers us is the fact that this Bill will give Ministers the right to change primary legislation without going through the current procedures. What Ministers want is a blank cheque to cash in the future as they please.
I am not talking just about Conservative Ministers—the same thing could be done by a Labour Government. Ministers are asking Parliament for a blank cheque in all sorts of fields—fire safety; the transfer of waste, including nuclear and highly toxic waste; road safety; health and safety at work; building; the environment.
I mean no disrespect to hon. Members on either side of the House when I say that we must not be drawn into looking simply at specific proposals. Specifics are difficult enough to debate, but how much more difficult the situation is made by the fact that this Bill is a real dog's breakfast. It deals with matters as diverse as the froth on beer, the welfare of animals in knackers' yards, market charters and unfair dismissal. These things are all chucked together in one piece of legislation.
However, they are at least specifics, about which I could talk tonight if I had the time. In future, I shall not be able to oppose change as I can tonight; in future, because of the 40-day time limit, the press will not be able to oppose change as it can at present; in future, Parliament will not be able to oppose legislative change as it can now; in future, the people of this country will not be able to oppose legal changes in the way they currently can.
The Government have presented their proposals as merely a means of dealing with red tape. We have heard about the red tape dragon. I did not realise that the Lambeth worm is probably a tapeworm. Many of the people I talk to tell me that they want more regulation.
Just over a week ago, I saw in my local newspaper an article about the number of children injured by fireworks during the Guy Fawkes period. In this field, our regulations are tighter than those of any other part of Europe. Germany produces bangers five or six times the capacity of ours. I do not want to see our regulations relaxed so that continental standards become our standards. The number of children in Nottingham who were injured last Guy Fawkes night was higher than in previous years, despite the fact that Nottinghamshire county council had run a big awareness campaign. Many of those children were under 13. How were they able to come by the fireworks that injured them?
In a radio interview, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) described these legislative changes as the froth—I do not know whether he was talking just about beer. You say that there will be consultation. I wonder how many people know what is being looked at?
Do you think that members of the public know that these task forces have been looking at the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations, which stopped manufacturers putting foam into furniture? Deaths in 1987 caused such an outcry in the country that the Government had to introduce those regulations. Then there are the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were introduced for the protection of young children wearing nighties. I remember television warnings in which people were shown how to roll up in a carpet a child whose nightie had caught fire.
Do we want to go back to that situation? I have letters showing that the Government have been looking at such legislation. A week ago, the Prime Minister echoed the words of the President of the Board of Trade in referring to this exercise as the biggest bonfire of controls in modern history. If you tamper with such regulations the Prime Minister's words may prove to be horrifically apt.
I should like some sort of guarantee about safety, but the truth is that you are reviewing legislation on health and safety. Do the public know that you are writing to bus companies to ask whether drivers' hours of work should be relaxed, and whether the right to breaks should be removed? Do the public know that you are talking about enabling bus drivers to work as long as they like regardless of the danger to the public?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to interrupt speeches, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing the Chair, and that I am not responsible for any of these things.

Mr. Heppell: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was a little carried away by the importance of the issues.
When we talk about froth on beer, I can get annoyed, but when we are talking about people's lives, I can get angry. We hear constantly about things being done on a cost-benefit basis. Is it valid to ask whether the implementation of safety regulations is worth while on that basis.
Let me give an example. I am a bad traveller—particularly bad in aircraft. I am one of those people who grip the seat as the aircraft takes off and comes down. But


I am always grateful for the statistics that show that flying is the safest form of travel. Do you realise that, under your formula—

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Under the Government's formula.

Mr. Heppell: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Do Ministers realise that if their formula were carried through, the fact that there is less risk in air travel than in other types of travel would indicate less need for regulation? How many jumbo jets is it acceptable to write off? If one or two were written off, would the risk be seen as acceptable?
When we try to legislate for an ideal situation, we still have accidents, deaths and disasters. If we legislate to make safety regulations less than ideal, the numbers of accidents, deaths and disasters will increase. No Government would be entitled to ask Parliament and the people to accept legislation putting profits before people's safety and lives.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Let me begin by gently reminding the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell)—whose speech was long on rhetoric, but a little short on balance—that no Conservative Member, and probably no Opposition Member, wants to dispense with regulations in a deregulation drive if either safety or consumer protection would be substantially affected. The Health and Safety Commission asked for powers to repeal unnecessary regulations not only because such regulations impose burdens on business, but because they encourage people not to take important existing regulations seriously enough—which is against the interests of health and safety in the economy a whole.
I support the Bill for two reasons. First, I think that, in an increasingly competitive world, it will reduce the burdens on business—especially small business—thereby enabling it to create far more jobs; secondly, it accords with my vision of the relationship that should exist between Government and country.
Let me deal with the second reason first. I have always believed that good government is primarily small government. I believe that, ironically, it was Khrushchev who said:
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
Sadly, politicians of all hues experience that temptation. It is regrettable that, after 14 years of Conservative administration, no less than 45 per cent. of our gross national product goes through Government or their agencies; Ministers are tempted to see their ministerial macho in terms of the size of their legislative programmes.
We need not read Osborne and Gaebler's "Reinventing Government", from the other side of the Atlantic, or "Small is Beautiful"—written by Schumacher back in 1974—to be interested in the kind of government that involves the genuine devolving of responsibilities to communities, thus energising them rather than making them feel more remote. That is my personal vision of government, which I want to be limited to activities in which a valid contribution can be made.
The Bill has the merit of reducing companies' costs. It is significant that it was Eddie George, Governor of the Bank of England, who pointed out—in a speech in Glasgow on 17 January—that, according to research

carried out by Newcastle university, between 1982 and 1991 2·4 million jobs had been created by companies with fewer than 20 employees. Such companies are generally the owner-drivers, and tend to have more to lose in terms of heavy regulation. The larger companies—which generally have less to lose in terms of regulation, and may even have something to gain as a result of the barriers that it imposes—had lost about a quarter of a million jobs over the same period.
The Federation of Small Businesses has said that operating a business in today's climate will cost about 3 per cent. of turnover, and the reading of about 400,000 words. Surely that does not provide an incentive for people to enter the business world and create jobs. Someone wishing to open a local supermarket will be less likely to create jobs if he is faced with the possibility of having to jump through 23 regulatory hoops in the form of licences.
The great unsung hero of the deregulation debate is not the small business man—although he will be assisted indirectly by the Bill. Unfortunately, the only available research seems to be American; but that research suggests that the consumer will benefit most. The Brookings Institution recently completed a study of deregulation in America, where a substantial amount took place between 1987 and 1988. According to that study, the economy benefited to the tune of about 7 per cent. of gross domestic product—between $32 billion and $46 billion; the consumer secured $32 billion of that amount in the form of better services and lower prices.
That is where I hope our deregulation initiative will show its teeth. I am glad that the DTI task force identified 3,500 regulations that it wanted to examine, although I must tell my right hon. Friend that I think it slightly sad that only 450 were specifically identified as beMg redundant. Equally important, in my view, are the continuing activities of the DTI unit chaired by Francis Maude, which will insist—through advice on future regulation, risk assessments and other such measures—that the necessary consumer safeguards remain, while unnecessary regulations are abolished.
Let me refer briefly to an issue that has been a subject of general debate in connection with the constitutional implications of the order-making powers taken by the Government, particularly in the first part of the Bill. Along with the rest of the House, I do not underestimate the importance of the principle involved: Ministers should not be able to undo Acts passed by the House of Commons by ministerial order diktat. That is a democratic principle which we give away at our peril. It is nothing new; as long ago as 1932, the Donoughmore committee—whose findings have already been quoted—spoke of the dangers of Henry VIII clauses. Indeed, the committee wanted to set up a Select Committee on delegated powers, which the House of Lords established in 1992.
I think that the Government have gone some way towards the desired position in recommending a 40-day consultation period—although I agree with the Council of Civil Service Unions and the Confederation of British Industry that it should be an open period, and that those consulted should be identified so that the range of consultation is made clear.
I also believe that the Government are right to establish two separate Select Committees to examine specific legislation, and I am glad that the House will be enabled to debate the matter by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. I think, however, that the scrutiny procedure


could be improved further: some people, including me, want the bonfire of controls that are unnecessary for consumer protection, but also want to ensure that changes are debated adequately. That is an honest feeling which I hope hon. Members will respect.
I do not think that the powers conferred on the Government should be open-ended. It was, I believe, the Donoughmore committee that said that order-making powers must meet two tests. First, they should be essential to the passage of the legislation involved; secondly, so fundamental was the constitutional precedent that they were setting that they should be time-limited. The committee mentioned one year.
In 1991, the Lord Chancellor said:
Obviously this is a power which has to be given with discretion."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1991; Vol. 527, c. 519.]
So say all of us.
I suggest that these proposals—which are far reaching, and could affect not only past but future legislation—should be time limited in the first instance, and that the House should then be invited to debate them again, precisely because of their constitutional significance. We cannot overlook that with impunity. Moreover, I think that Select Committees should be given powers not only to consider the specific legislation, but to examine all delegated legislation, as now happens in the House of Lords. Order-making powers in existing legislation should be inspected. I also think that there is a case for the extension of these powers to clause 57, but we shall need to discuss that in Committee.
I welcome the Bill, which will increase competitiveness and reduce the size of Government; but I have the reservations that I have mentioned.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has made constructive comments on the Bill and if his suggestions were carried out, it would be less bad than it is. I hope that by saying that I will not put him at a disadvantage among Conservative Members. I particularly agree with his comments on the Select Committee. Consideration of the role of the Minister would be best done—and seen to be done by the public—by a Select Committee rather than by the normal Standing Committee procedure.
The use of the word "burden" in the Bill is a mistake. One assumes that a burden is something which one has not taken on willingly and about which one cannot do anything—an illness or something that should not happen. Regulations do not fit that sort of definition—they are the way in which we in society reach a mutual agreement on the obligations of corporate or private organisations, balanced against the importance and sanctity of individuals' interests.
Primary legislation gives Ministers power to make what were originally administrative adjustments—but the Bill assumes them to be otherwise. Many hon. Members believe that they are inherently wrong, but any state that claims to be democratic must have such structure and must ensure that the protection of interests and the ability to be free and to innovate are properly balanced. There will be more regulations as life becomes more complicated, with

more scientific devices, and faster travel and communication. People are subject to more disadvantages; so there have to be some forms of protection.
The fact that this is a Government Bill reminds me of satan protesting about sins. None of the arguments of Conservative Members has been convincing because the Conservative party has been in power for 13 years. If the Government wanted to abolish statutory instruments, they could follow normal procedure. Such measures need not be renewed or could be revoked. The phrase used in most Acts is "the Minister may", not "the Minister shall"—although some Acts do use that wording.
I want to concentrate on the part of the Bill that has not received much attention and which, in effect, gives greater opportunity for more quangos and for more public services to be contracted out. Although the first half of the Bill is important, the final part will be its trademark or, one hopes, its epitaph. By definition, quangos are unaccountable, often unknown and, for practical reasons, often consist of unidentified people.
Returning from a welcome visit to Scotland last weekend, I read in Scotland on Sunday that a conference of Scots in the west of Scotland had, by a narrow majority, agreed
quangos are a gravy train for Tory supporters".
A full majority of the members said:
there were too many quangos in Scotland.
Those were the decisions of the conference of west of Scotland Conservatives. But the Bill will create more quangos; it will create more contractors.
The public service ethic was born in the early years of this century and was perhaps at its best during the period of great administration from 1906 to 1914. It was reactivated between 1945 and 1951, but it has now virtually disappeared. It was often not party political; people of all parties believed in public service and admired public service administrators, particularly those in local government. Now they are being undermined by the rat race that has been hotted up by Conservative Members in the past few years.
Of course, regulations were not always perfect. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was right—it is up to hon. Members to criticise officials, and badly drafted and unnecessary regulations. That is part of our job; that is what Parliament is about. But we are discussing a Bill not for business but for undermining Parliament. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who is no longer present, said that the Opposition run down the country. We do not. Some of us are proud of it, especially its parliamentary democracy, or what is left of it. Time and again, Conservative Members undermine not only parliamentary democracy, but local government democracy where it counts most and where people are being ground down by lack of facilities and accountability. That will also be one effect of the Bill.
One of the most trenchant clauses in the Bill is described in the explanatory memorandum. Despite the time limit, that description deserves to be read out. It states:
Clause 60 provides that for all purposes, except those relating to criminal proceedings or contractual relations between the Minister, office-holder or local authority and the contractor, the acts of the contractor shall be regarded as the acts of the Minister, office-holder or local authority when the contractor carries out the functions for which he is authorised.
Of course, the contractor is authorised by Acts and, probably, by the very statutory instruments and regulations


of which Conservative Members complain, and which will create more contracting out, more compulsory competitive tendering and more quangos. The explanatory memorandum explains that contracting out will extend to the functions of the traffic commissioners, the Registrar General for England and Wales, the public trustee, the Comptroller-General of Patents and the courts service.
The measure is an extension of an unwelcome development in British society. Other than those who benefit from it, I do not know of anyone who supports or wants it. Whether knowingly or not, Conservative Members have created a cascade of patronage and sub-despots. They took their cue from a super-despot who is no longer in this place. Her rather nice successor and some other Conservative Members cannot tackle the problem because it is not in their nature to do so. The Government are beginning to fall apart because they are split on the issue of public service. The Bill further undermines service to the public and the social contract that the representatives of the people have a right to determine. It puts more power into the hands of Ministers who may be rivals in the creation of small pyramids of sub-patronage. Authority is being taken from the House and transferred to a Cabinet of sub-despots—there could even be another super-despot.
Some people would judge that the developments show that we are moving towards what might be called a quasi-fascist authoritarian state. I have heard no argument that convinces me that we are not.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I noted the declaratory and rather frightening ending of the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I want to concentrate on some of his remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).
It is my recollection that, since 1979, my party and I have gone around proclaiming the fact that we overregulate. I know that the Opposition Front-Bench team is much attached to election addresses. I sometimes complained in my election addresses about the overregulation in our country. Of course, during general elections in 1983, 1987 and 1992 the same rubric was cited. It is not a rubric any more, but a rhetorical argument—we were never able to grasp the nettle. The problem was how to deregulate a range of Bills passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We could not pass such powers into the hands of an Executive. We are now having a bonfire of the vanities of previous Executives. It is the constant search for more legislation with attendant statutory instruments that causes us problems. For many years, I have campaigned to change the procedures of the House as they are affected by the use of the guillotine. Our bonfire of the vanities is a response to our legislation in haste and our repentance at leisure.
Before Christmas, during a debate on yet another guillotine motion, I said that I could not contemplate handing to the Executive the right to do away with legislation completely, not through debate or scrutiny and the testing of propositions but in an hour and a half's debate after which we have unamendable legislation. We do not know, however, whether that will be the procedure recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure. We are, in effect, buying a pig in a poke—[Interruption.] I

understand the Bill, but, at the end of the day, it is the House that in theory makes the regulations and the Standing Orders. It is up to us—[Interruption.] I do not intend to engage in bickering across the Floor of the House.
The substance of my argument is that clauses 1 to 4, and possibly clause 6, give the Executive powers that we should be cautious about giving away. We all want to do away with regulation, but it is a slow process. The reasoning behind my argument is our regard for the rule of law. This is the most remarkable country in the European Community—or the European Union, as I should call it now—because we expect obedience to the law and we do so because we can change the law.
Looking over the history of our party back to Burke, we have required that the rule of law should be not merely the stroke of a Minister's pen or the wish of the Executive but due process. That process confers on the law the solemnity and regard that we expect every citizen to have for it. To provide a bonfire of the vanities by sweeping away all that for which we so cautiously and carefully legislated—and, in recent years, so carelessly and incautiously legislated—means a constitutional crisis for the working of the Chamber.
There has been no reflection on what the Bill means to the balance between Opposition and Government. I am mindful of the fact that one day we may be in opposition and all the powers that we take unto ourselves or confer on colleagues in the Executive whom we trust will be available to any Executive. There are moments when, of course, our own Executive is unsuccessful and not to be regarded. Why should I give to those whom I do not necessarily trust powers to wipe away laws that have been crafted by the processes of Parliament? That is my question to the Government. I know why wiser and previous Governments have held back from taking unto themselves such powers—caution.
The Chamber has lasted for centuries and has been able to change from autocratic and oligarchical forms of government to a democratic government. I should like to have thought that that was the last development in our constitutional process, but, as I see the constant nibbling away by the impatience, or other means, of Europe or Executive design, I want to hold on to the integrity of the House of Commons to ensure the liberties and freedom of our people. That is why I urge the Government to undertake a cautious rethink of the Bill because, without regard to the process of legislation or to the ability of the House to examine, amend or reject measures and to consider the balance of the arguments, we do not have a proper function.
The making of law is our most solemn first responsibility. The attestation that that law can be borne or can at least be acquiesced in by our constituents is our very solemn duty. Clauses 1 to 4 are, in a sense, a repudiation of the history of a democratic House of Commons.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: It is a privilege to follow such a speech, especially as it came from a Conservative Member. It was a powerful denunciation of the Government's attitude and of their claims about what the Bill will do.
The Bill has major constitutional implications, but that fact does not appear to worry the Government who, in recent years, have become cavalier about observing the


constitutional proprieties. We have heard about the so-called Henry VIII clauses which give Ministers the power to repeal and amend primary legislation with the stroke of a pen. The civil service unions, local authorities associations and others are wary of the new and highly centralised powers and the ineffective parliamentary scrutiny that goes with them.
Among the trade unionists and others outside the House who are worried is the former Employment Minister and Defence Minister, Alan Clark, who told The Mail on Sunday:
I find it incredible that any Conservative, unless suffering from megalomania to an extent that is medically significant, could put his name to such an authoritarian provision.

I can think of one such Conservative, and he opened the debate for the Government this afternoon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the second part of the Bill gives Ministers the same sweeping powers as the first part. It removes the statutory obstacles to the contracting out of functions that are currently within the civil service and local government. However, as I understand it, there is no provision for additional scrutiny by the special Committees of both Houses, which Ministers have mentioned.
Like me, many people fear the privatisation by stealth, and without proper debate in the House, of major public services. Several of those were mentioned in the short list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, and they include the Forestry Commission, the Patent Office, the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, which is so important to my constituents, and the administration of the courts service. Others fear that the Benefits Agency, medical services and local authority revenue collection services could be privatised, a point raised yesterday by Conservative Members. They fear that even the functions of the official receiver could be privatised.
The local authority associations that have scrutinised the Bill carefully have asked some pertinent questions. They want to know whether the Bill will allow the contracting out of sensitive functions such as the determination of planning applications. It is not inconceivable. What about the contracting out of licensing functions or even of decisions on school admissions? Such ideas may appear to be fanciful, but they are not. I look to the Minister for assurances on those points.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned the bonfire of the vanities. I shall say a few words about the President of the Board of Trade, whose speech tonight I have heard a thousand times before. It is now very well worn. He talked about rolling back the frontiers of the state as long ago as 1980 and here he is again, still rolling back those frontiers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that the task force had considered 3,500 regulations of which 71 per cent. have been introduced since 1979. No fewer than 21 per cent.—just over one fifth—have been introduced since 1990 when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister. It is ludicrous for the Government to suggest that regulations are a burden or a spillover from a socialist past and that we need the Conservatives to wipe clean the legislative slate and get back to some super-competitive nirvana. There is so much hypocrisy in what the Government are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned double standards. The Government have double standards, as was graphically demonstrated at Prime Minister's Question Time today. When the Prime Minister was asked to comment on the £10 million pay-off to the chairman of British Aerospace plc, John Cahill, after the Rover-BMW deal, he said that it was not a matter for him. However, the scrapping by the privatised British Telecommunications plc of its peak rate for weekday calls was apparently a matter for him and he said much about it.
The President of the Board of Trade has the same double standards. He says that the regulation of the private sector and quangos, which spend millions of pounds of public money, is not a matter for him, but the regulation of the public sector is a matter for him. One regulates some things but not others. When he was Secretary of State for the Environment 15 years ago—it seems much longer ago than 15 years—he promised the Association of Metropolitan Authorities Review a "bonfire of controls". He spoke about freedoms, but we know what Conservative freedoms amount to. He spoke about freedom from detailed controls in housing; we have more controls in housing than ever before. He spoke about freedom from circulars; we have more circulars than ever before. He spoke about freedom from 300 controls, but we know from what Conservative Members said that most of the regulations have been introduced since he made that statement 15 years ago.
The President of the Board of Trade said that local authorities had the freedom to use 50 per cent. capital receipts for housing and we know that that means nothing. He said:
Central controls are so detailed and stringent that we are drawing back from this web of detail.
Exactly the opposite applies. He said that every local authority should be able to raise as much money as it wanted from the rates. That has been changed. There is central control. He said that block grant—now replaced by the revenue support grant—would not prevent an authority from determining how much it wished to spend. That is not true. New central controls are pinning down local authorities.
The President of the Board of Trade told the "AMA Review" in September 1979:
I believe in giving greater discretion to local government."  Fifteen years later, local government has never been more constrained.
The President of the Board of Trade says that he wants local authorities to have discretion. The fact is that we live in the most centralised state in the western world, where opportunities for free democratic expression are being curtailed by Conservative Members and where the market is being deregulated even when it can be shown that that is against the national and the public interest.
The Government are creating freedom to exploit—as in the abolition of wages councils—freedom for people to say what they want to say, as long as the Conservatives determine that what they say is okay, and freedom to do what the Government allow them to do. The Conservative party has a corrosive antipathy to the public sector and public provision. The Conservatives abolished elected local authorities—the Greater London council, ILEA and the metropolitan counties—and they abolished elections in 1985, before those authorities had been statutorily wound up. They imposed, as I have explained, myriad central controls, removing discretion from local authorities, and


they transferred en bloc many functions that used to be held by democratic councils to unaccountable, unelected quangos stuffed full of Tory placemen and placewomen.
The Conservatives have created in Britain a new magistracy, and that is not in the public interest. Parliament is told that it must protect the public interest. I will conclude at this point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Listening to the hyperbole of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I cannot help but feel that he could have done with a little self-regulation in his remarks to the House.
It has long been accepted that one of the prime responsibilities of Government is to encourage enterprise. and to foster prosperity, because from them come not only jobs, not only the personal satisfaction that millions of people get by going to work to improve the quality of their lives and to provide for their children, but the funds to furnish a flourishing public sector and to provide standards of health care and education that the country rightly demands.
The Government's direct ability to generate prosperity is heavily circumscribed. It is not Governments, after all, who create wealth, so it is not easy to legislate for prosperity. Obviously, low interest rates, low inflation and low taxation can help. It is simpler, however, to legislate for poverty and for decline, with excessive taxation, excessive and self-defeating social protection, excessive restrictive practices in the workplace and excessive interference in free markets.
Labour Governments have proved how easy it is to legislate for decline. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, Opposition Members would prove that they have failed to learn from their mistakes. We need to look no further than to adherence to the social chapter, the minimum wage, the European workers councils and so on, to realise that.
Excessive regulation is one of the most insiduous and widespread impediments to prosperity and enterprise. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was brave enough to admit, that tendency has by no means been confined to Opposition parties. Over the years, it has woven its way into the very fabric of Government culture. It is easy to see why. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned a few reasons.
Not all regulation is bad. Much of it is necessary; much is desirable. None of it is ill-intentioned. Invariably, regulations are introduced for what seem to be worthy reasons at the time, but times change, and the regulations do not. A willingness by Government to listen, to be responsive, is generally a good thing, but inevitably, on almost any issue, among those people clamouring the loudest in the Government's ear—often supported by Opposition Members—are the "something must be done" brigade.
Equally, it is perfectly natural for members of the Government and their civil servants, and indeed the enforcement agencies, to want to be seen to do something about the something that must be done, so the regulation grows and multiplies.
It is because the Bill confronts that issue that it is so important. I will return to that later. Before I do so, I shall comment on some of the specific measures. They are welcome in their own right. The Bill makes a useful start. I especially welcome—in this respect, I differ from the hon. Member for Pendle—the enabling provisions that remove statutory obstacles to contracting out in central and local government. Conservative Members know very well the benefits, in terms of value for money and quality of services, that have accrued from the process of contracting out.
The hon. Member for Pendle makes several mistakes. First, he seems to assume that public ownership is somehow better than private ownership, and then he confuses public ownership with public services. That is a serious error. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) implied the same, when he said that when something stops being in the public sector, it stops being a public service and becomes somehow part of a rat race.
All hon. Members have their own favoured candidates for further deregulation. I am a consultant to S. G. Warburg Group, an investment bank in the City, and I, wearing that hat, very much hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will re-examine the recommendations of the deregulation task force in relation to financial services.
The Financial Services Act 1986 has imposed on one of our leading international industries substantial additional costs, and it has to be said that the benefits are far from clear. I especially commend to my hon. Friend's attention page 55 of the excellent book by the deregulation task force, which deals with client money regulations. Those are extremely onerous, costly to operate, and are wholly inappropriate for the vast majority of transactions, which take place between professional investors. Will my hon. Friend reconsider that?
Just as Rome was not built in a day, so the process of demolishing the labyrinth of needless regulations will not be completed overnight. The Institute of Directors has written about clauses 1 to 4, which I have no doubt form one of the key parts of the Bill:
The order-making power contained in the Bill allows Parliament to repeal or reduce legislation through a procedure which has previously been reserved solely for increasing it".
That is the key point. I know that it has caused considerable consternation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is exercised by it, and spoke eloquently about it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). However, the obstructive attitude of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Opposition Members towards deregulation is eloquent testimony to the need for those clauses.
It is ironic that procedures used so regularly to increase the burden on business through regulation run into such difficulty when it is suggested that they be used, for the first time, to reduce the burden. That is especially strange given the additional safeguards that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has wisely incorporated into the legislation.
I fear that the Opposition's bogus constitutional arguments about clauses 1 to 4 are simply a cynical attempt to hide their rooted objection to the principle of deregulation. We have heard that objection voiced clearly by Opposition Members today. If there is a constitutional issue at stake, it centres on the fact that the Bill, for the first


time, makes it almost as easy to reduce regulation as it already is to impose it. Conservative Members will certainly support that.
The Bill is important because it marks a psychological sea change in the Governments's attitude towards business. It is only a first step, and it must be vigorously pursued if our business community is to operate efficiently in highly competitive international markets. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is on smaller businesses that the burdens of regulation bear down hardest. Therefore, as the process of deregulation continues, it is they who will benefit most.
The Bill offers hope to millions of people running smaller businesses men such as Mr. Stanley Gibson, proprietor of the Oxted gallery in my constituency, who for 20 years has run an excellent establishment making and selling oven gloves to eager customers. Mr. Gibson had not had one complaint in all that time, until the other day, when some bossy people from local government informed him that his gloves failed to meet the approved standard.
If Mr. Gibson takes that criticism seriously, the results will be obvious. His costs will rise substantially, and so will the price of his oven gloves, so he will suffer lower sales. That is the dilemma which many small businesses face when they are hit by such needlessly interfering regulations.
The Bill will be widely welcomed for what is on the face of it, but its real strength will be seen as what it promises is fulfilled.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) should consider carefully what he has said because, having praised the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he went on to describe criticism of clauses 1 to 4 as bogus. That is a fundamental contradiction—

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Miller: No, because I have only just finished my first sentence.
Several hon. Members have asked whose regulations we are talking about and have pointed out that they were imposed by the current Administration. In view of the classic quote that I heard earlier during Prime Minister's questions, I guess that today will go on record as the day when Ministers' cry was, "Nothing has anything to do with me. "

Mr. Kevin Hughes: "It wasn't me guy."

Mr. Miller: That is right: "It wasn't me guy."
Regulations do become out of date, and everyone knows that there must be proper mechanisms by which they can be adjusted and corrected. Several Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, all with far more experience than I have of the way in which this place works, have described the effective ways that already exist to ensure that regulations are kept up to date.
Hon. Members will be aware that a serious chemical fire occurred in my constituency last Tuesday. I have lost count of the number of regulations that govern the running of the

plant concerned, but I know that the Minister is familiar with the site—indeed, he opened one of the plants—so I ask him to tell me in his winding-up speech how many of the current regulations governing that site he envisages wiping out. I hope that he will say none.
The President of the Board of Trade said earlier that the safety of workers and customers in the environment was an important issue. In that case, I hope that the Minister will clarify the curious anomaly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and specifically set out in the research paper published by the Library:
Clause 27(i) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill allows for the revocation or repeal of the above mentioned existing enactments without direct replacement. This includes regulations made under those Acts as well as subsequent (post 1974) regulations introduced to replace the earlier ones. In other words, recent provisions could be repealed, but only if they had been introduced to replace pre-1974 legislation identified in Schedule 1 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
That needs clarification, to say the least, by the Government.
In inviting the Minister to comment on the incident in my constituency, I hope that he will agree wholeheartedly with a paragraph from the Chemical Industries Association brief sent to hon. Members yesterday:
The chemical industry believes that much of the framework of existing Regulations specifically affecting the chemical industry—e.g. the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, the Environment Protection Act 1990 and the COSHH Regulations—is fundamentally sound; in many cases however there is a need for greater clarity and consistency in interpretation and implementation.
The chemical industry does not want the regulations to be wiped away. The Chemical Industries Association, in its wisdom, says that what it wants is clarity and consistency of interpretation. In other words, there is nothing wrong with regulation. What this country needs is better regulation.
The President of the Board of Trade mentioned some of the rather silly regulations now on the statute book, but he had to acknowledge that the examples that he cited were regulations established by the Conservative Administration. It seems a bit odd that we should entrust that same group of people with the power of wiping legislation out left, right and centre. If they cannot be trusted to set up regulations properly, how can they be trusted to wipe legislation out unilaterally?
The most effective mechanism for dealing with the Government's lack of competence concerning regulations is for them to resign and let someone with a clearer head have a go—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we shall see in a year or two. The Government should let someone with a clearer head have a fresh crack of the whip.
The regulations' impact on redundancies is bizarre. Again, I refer the House to the CIA, which says:
In principle we consider that the part of the Section in question that deals with collective agreements ought to be retained because we believe that companies should honour such agreements, although it would be helpful if tribunals here could be encouraged to take a more flexible approach interpreting `special reasons justifying a departure' from the agreed procedure.
In a recent meeting with the CIA, I pointed out that its member companies were partly responsible for the situation that needs that caveat. Those companies, along with many others in Britain, made the tribunal system more and more legalistic.
It was clear from the exchange involving my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield that the hon. Member for


Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) had little understanding of the operations of the industrial tribunal system. That is not surprising, because it was the Conservatives who made the system so incredibly legalistic and a paradise for rich lawyers, and who undermined the general principle that was established in the tribunal system in the first place—that the merits of an individual case should be taken into account. Against that background, the CIA's advice should be heeded by the Government, and the reference to clause 26 dropped forthwith.
I hope that the Government will realise the error of their ways and withdraw many of their clauses in Committee, if the Bill gets that far. Hon. Members have referred to local authorities that are concerned about markets. Those are valid arguments, I have received letters from one of the two councils in my constituency. I have also received representations on how the protection of the historic cities of this nation will be maintained if wholesale deregulation is allowed to go ahead. Do the Government really intend to allow Ministers to have powers to wipe away such regulations, which protect our ancient heritage? If so, it is a bad Bill.
Clause 20 refers to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and an additional clause being inserted. The Government have been hoist by their own petard. In their attempt to sweep away regulation, they have drafted a clause which will require more regulation to enable it to work. I shall give a simple example. The clause refers to
a series of transfers between the same parties of waste of the same description".
If acid is the waste product from an industrial plant, is it really the intention that another carrier shifting the same acid, but in a more concentrated form, should be allowed the same single licence? If the House means that, it should say so, but I am sure that it does not, and to enforce the clause in the way that the Government seem to intend will require more regulation. That is another example of the inadequacies of the Government's approach.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am delighted that the Government have at last decided to take their part in reducing regulations. I am also pleased that they have consulted business and intend to consult business before regulations are published in future. As part of that process, as perhaps the House will know, eight task forces from the business and voluntary sector were formed to examine any of the 3,500 regulations affecting their own sectors. Seven of those task forces have reported to the Government. Their 605 proposals were published in January.
The task forces have suggested three principles which, it is argued, should guide Government Departments in reviewing existing regulations for the future. First,
Make sure you start by measuring the impact on small firms of new regulations.
That is fine and fair enough. Secondly,
Avoid regulations that are out of proportion to benefits to be obtained.
Again, that is fine and fair enough. Thirdly,
Make regulations goal-based rather than over-prescriptive.
That may be a wonderful aim, but it is disgustingly phrased. If regulations are to be dealt with, I trust that they will be dealt with in better English than that.
That infelicity of language seems to have flowed over into the Bill. Clause 5 deals with amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1973. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) one will see references to something called a monopoly situation.

To my mind, we are talking about a monopoly, not a monopoly situation. I hope that that sort of language can be done away with. I hope equally that, in the spirit of plain English, we can do away with the sort of provision that we find in Clause 21(1)(b), which says:
The appropriate authority may by regulations repeal, or as the case may be, revoke …
(b) any provision of regulations under section 15 of the 1974 Act (health and safety regulations) which has effect in relation to a matter in relation to which a provision which was an existing statutory provision for the purposes of the Part had effect.
I am sure that that is well intentioned, but it is not well expressed and I trust that in Committee something will be done about such language.
I shall now deal with some of the effects of the Bill that affect small business. The task forces were quite clear that regulators should think small and frame new regulations with the interests of small businesses in mind. Small businesses are most vulnerable to over-regulation and have to struggle hard against red tape. They cannot spread the costs of complying with regulations as easily as larger firms. We as a country cannot afford to stifle the spirit of one of the most important areas of our economy. I say that as a Member whose constituency is largely populated by people working in small businesses. To ease the burdens on small business is a fine thing to want to do.
We can be proud of the way the Government have tackled the regulations that have emerged from the European Commission and European institutions. We can also be proud of their attitude towards the approach by local government and Departments to over-regulation. I trust that under the Bill and future deregulating measures we shall ensure that European over-regulation is well filtered before it hits those whom we wish to elect us.
I shall now deal with some of the measures in the Bill, some of which I am happy to commend and some of which cause me concern. I shall not repeat the intelligent remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Clauses 1 to 4 contain, in spirit, some welcome material, but the means by which we go about seeking to produce deregulation causes me some constitutional concern. I shall not repeat their submission, but I would add the following. Those clauses, especially clause 2, seem to provide Ministers with the ability to amend the criminal law. I suggest that it is not safe to allow Ministers to change the criminal law—albeit they may, by doing so, reduce penalties or make less burdensome some of the consequential effects of any breach of an existing regulation or Act. I merely put that down as a marker so that my hon. Friends do not dismiss—as I did, I regret to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth)—as bogus any constitutional objections. They are not bogus; they are well meant and sincere, and they deserve to be listened to.
I am happy to give a fair wind to clauses 21, 22 and 23, which do away with so-called ancient market rights. My constituency contains two local authorities—Harborough district council and Oadby and Wigston borough council. Oadby and Wigston council is adversely affected by the socialist city council in Leicester. Leicester city council attempts to exert market rights over the entire territory of Oadby and Wigston borough council which, sadly for that council, lies within six and two thirds miles of the centre of Leicester. People who have not been elected by the citizens of Oadby and Wigston are telling them what they can and cannot do within their own local authority


boundaries. The sooner that position is done away with the better. I say that despite the fact that I have nothing particularly kind to say about the Liberal Democrat majority on Oadby and Wigston borough council. However, I suggest that the Liberal Democrats' giving support for this provision is about the best thing that they have done since being elected and I wish them success in that.
The other provision that I especially welcome is the amendment of the law relating to children's access to public houses. It is ludicrous that in this day and age—I am sorry to use a cliché, although it is not the first time that I have done so—parents should not be permitted to take children into public houses where a special room is set aside to allow them to enjoy lunch or supper, as a family, in proper surroundings. I am glad to see that amendment. introduced.
I also draw the attention of the House to clause 18 which deals with the enforcement of functions relating to slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. At the other end of my constituency—that is, outside Oadby and Wigston—my constituents are very much involved in farming. As my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate, the grass in Harborough is second to none for the fattening of cattle. The EC regulations concerning slaughterhouses have not been greeted with much enthusiasm. I trust that clause 18, which affects the functions relating to the welfare of animals at slaughter and which amends the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967, the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980, will allow better and more sympathetic governing of the way in which slaughterhouses run themselves, to the benefit of those who make use of them, including the farmers and butchers in my constituency.
I welcome the Bill in principle, subject to the warning points to which I adverted at the beginning of my remarks. I trust that in Committee the Bill will receive the welcome attention that it deserves and requires so that at the end of the day it will be but the first of the many deregulating measures for which our constituents—certainly my constituents—have been crying out for many years.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Let me make my position clear. I am opposed to unnecessary red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. Ther can be nothing worse than coming across a person who wears a Jobsworth hat, and who has the rules and regulations in front of him. Such people will implement them, stupid though they may be. There is unnecessary red tape, there are unnecessary regulations, and there are people who are only too willing to exploit that position.
However, the Bill is fraught with danger to consumers and workers who rely on appropriate regulations to protect them from unsavoury practices and exploitation. There is also a clear constitutional danger with the catch-all, so called Henry VIII clauses which the Government are trying to foist on the House. They are flying in the face of constitutional precedent and advice. They are laying themselves open to more charges of arrogance, despotism and worse—words that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might rule out of order, so I shall not use them.
Government motives for pushing through these dangerous and widely criticised proposals are clear. They are concerned about their business friends and their financial backers who want to reduce standards in health and safety at work, and reduced control over business practices to the detriment of the consumer and the worker. The Government must not be allowed to use the Bill to lower standards or to enable more and more standards to be attacked.
The Government's plan to increase their power in relation to the power of Parliament must be a cause for concern. It is a constitutional concern, because it is a move which will undermine Parliament, and because of the potential use and effect of measures that the Government may introduce in future on important aspects of health and safety legislation, among other legislation.
That power should be used only in exceptional circumstances, yet the Government have made increased use of that method, most notably in the various Education Acts. The fundamental point is that if a Minister wants to change legislation passed by Parliament as a whole, he should come back to Parliament and go through the normal procedures. No proper case has yet been made for the Government having such power. Until such reasons are given, the House should not approve the Bill.
If the Government really see deregulation proposals as such an important plank of their programme, Ministers should not be frightened of bringing those proposals to the House and having them subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. There are understandable concerns that, once the power to make deregulation orders has been passed, a whole range of legislation will come under fire.
With Departments and agencies reviewing regulations at the moment, we are being asked to pass a carte blanche measure which could allow all kinds of regulations to be repealed and weakened. There is no mention in the Bill of what the changes will be.
The Government claim that the Bill will reduce the burdens on business, but they choose to forget that what is a so-called "burden" to business is a safeguard to consumers and workers. The Government have made it clear that the views of their pals in business should come first, second and third.
There is widespread concern that the so-called Henry VIII clauses will be used at a later date to attack health and safety legislation in detail. Although no major changes are proposed in the Bill, we have only to look at the Government's attitude to health and safety to know that those clauses pose a threat to health and safety and to consumer protection legislation.
The Government have cut the funding for the Health and Safety Executive for the next two years. In 1993–94, the HSE has lost £13 million. It expects to have to cut 230 jobs just to cope with the shortfall in its budget. Nothing shows more clearly the Government's lack of commitment to health and safety.
The Government have also been busy weakening safety controls in other areas, the most notable example being coal mining. We had a system that was second to none. It was torn apart and replaced by codes of practice. The role of pit deputies has been abolished, and the safety regulations have been weakened. Those codes of practice are designed to make life easier for a privatised coal industry. Lives will be put at risk, and few in the coal mining industry doubt it.
While the Bill is supposed to be about getting rid of unnecessary red tape, it also represents a further centralisation of power, because of the power to make deregulation orders and the decision to change the common law relating to market franchise rights. It will take more power from local authorities, to the detriment of local people and local business.
The policy will have a massive impact on the economic and social well-being of people in Doncaster, and will threaten many jobs. The proposals will undermine the viability of existing markets. The loss of rental income and the likely decline in the number of traders operating in market halls and open markets will transform the character of towns such as Doncaster, which has one of the best and largest markets in the north of England.
Hundreds of families depend on that market for their livelihood. Why is the Secretary of State determined to bring more misery to Doncaster families? Is he not satisfied with the misery already caused by his pit closure programme? Markets have always been an important part of community life in Doncaster, and it seems that nobody outside Whitehall wants that to change. The Government are once again trying to impose their political dogma where it is not needed or wanted.
If, as I suspect, the abolition of market franchises has been included in the Bill in response to special pleading from one small part of the retailing sector, the Government ought to say so. The electorate will quickly realise that it is yet another part of the continuing strategy to strip valued traditional powers from local authorities.
Where is the evidence that the existing system is frustrating additional traders or consumer choice? The Secretary of State is attacking the life blood of Doncaster, the small towns of Thorne and Stainforth in my constituency, and many other towns and cities. I ask him to drop this ill-founded proposal, and save the Doncaster people from yet another vindictive policy of his failed Government. The Bill is possibly the most dangerous that the Government have introduced, and it should be resoundingly defeated.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I unreservedly welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who I know is pushing ahead of all of us in considering all the regulations, and may be relied on to support the full initiative of deregulation.
We have heard a couple of especially perceptive speeches on the constitutional changes proposed in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) have dealt with the main concerns of clauses 1 to 4, which contain most of the main constitutional issues. I find it difficult, as ever, to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, since he talks so movingly and directly to the issues, but the problem goes back to the 1980s.
The House has fallen down over scrutinising the European legislation. The fact that we must bring in such measures now is an example of how little serious scrutiny has been carried out on so much legislation which has poured through on the back of the Single European Act, especially.
It is that failure to consider the detail of what was coming across the Europe which has led to the amount of abuse from which many small businesses are suffering. Therefore, it is important to understand why the Conservative party, especially, is the party of deregulation, as we wish to be known, and are known. After recent years, we are tackling deregulation specifically.
The constitutional concerns over the Bill are relevant and, in Committee, we need to consider some of the constitutional points made, especially in view of the time-limiting devices, so that we can return to the House some element of debate and scrutiny, which has already gone. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that those possibilities need to be considered.
Having said all that, I welcome the Bill, because if it encompasses the ideals and ideas of one person, they are those of Chris Booker. I wish that we could rename it the Chris Booker Bill, because he has been so determined in his efforts to force the Government and all the parties to recognise what has happened in the process of excessive regulation which has not been properly scrutinised.
Although I realise that Mr. Booker would riot necessarily want to be associated directly with the Government, it is important that his part in such a move is recognised and that he continues to push us further into greater and wider areas of deregulation. The effects of the single market are the aspects which Mr. Booker has been most successful in identifying, and I hope that we take those elements on board.
About the initiative to deregulate, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
The Government's aim is to remove unnecessary regulations which waste time, add to business costs and threaten competitiveness and jobs while protecting vital interests".
Notwithstanding any possibilities of excess, that encapsulates our drive and they should be our watchwords.
It is also important to consider the comments of the Director-General of the CBI:
This is the start of what must become a continuing process. Deregulation must not be a nine day wonder.
Stan Mendham, chief executive of the Forum for Private Business said:
Sadly, we have seen too many false starts on regulation. To understand the law, business owners need to read over 400,000 words and complying with red tape costs 3 per cent. of turnover.
It is important to understand the problems that have existed for business men over the years that we have been pouring regulations on their heads; perhaps now we can start to row back and reconsider the whole role of Government. Essentially, we accept that there is a need to protect the weak and vulnerable. That goes without saying, but I am sure that it will be restated continuously in Committee.
The problem is that, through a process of events, Ministers have found themselves under pressure from pressure groups, lobby groups, colleagues and almost anybody else who has seen something wrong and has wanted to ban it, regulate it or stop it. We have all been guilty of putting that pressure on our hon. Friends.
Blaming the civil service is madness, as it is not civil servants' fault that we have passed to them stupid regulations which fail. In its excellence, the civil service has gone about making such regulations exactly what they purport to be. The trouble was that the regulations were everything to every man and woman, which resulted in a flow of regulations.
The questions we must therefore address are, why do we in the first place make such absurd Bills and, as a result, why do we need to employ so many people to ensure that every regulation is imposed? Deregulation is important because we must be aware that, while some regulations work well, events are always changing. Often, regulations give rise to a whole number of unforeseen problems. I shall not go into detail, because we see it about us all the time.
Review is constantly required, because regulations have gone too far. The crucial elements are to assess how far we meant to go and why have we extended regulations into areas in which we never intended to go. Essentially, this Bill must be about redressing the balance and pulling us back from areas in which we never intended to be, as people like Mr. Booker have pointed out time and again.
Small businesses suffer the most from regulations. I know that, at times, people say that they stand for small and medium businesses. Frankly, someone must stand for them, because they are the most crucial element of growth in the economy. Sometimes, it is most important for us to understand that the strength of an economy is measured by the number of small and medium businesses.
As has been proven time and again, and as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the response of small businesses to growth and changing circumstances is always much faster than that of bigger companies, because they have lower overheads and fewer problems with their work force. That is the most important point. In over-regulating, we have ensured that the life of small businesses has become more difficult over the same period. It is important to see whether that was unnecessary and change it.
When we examine this whole area, we must consider the position of the purpose versus the cost, leading us to the ultimate effect of what we do. One could argue that the problem is always understanding the point at which possibility for a small minority of the population becomes probability for the vast majority of the population. In other words, the likelihood of harm is now a probability, and we must regulate that.
Before we reach that point, regulation should be about information—telling people about the possibilities and allowing them to make value judgments and choices. After all, when people go to cross the road, we do not put barriers on streets across the whole of the country saying that they cannot cross here—they can cross only where we put crossings. We say that there are crossings there—if people cross there, they judge the excessive danger; if they want to, they can cross at the crossing point. That is the principle of regulation, and deregulation should get us back to that.
I welcome the Bill. While I have some concerns—as I said earlier when I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—about some of the powers that we are taking, on which I wish we would think again, the Government's powers should be taken in the context of the way in which we have moved over the whole draft of European legislation. It is time to think again, and this Bill provides the right opportunity to do that. I welcome it unreservedly.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill is not really about deregulation. Indeed, it provides the Minister with a great many more order-making powers, apart from the

clause 1, which provides him with special powers to remove primary legislation. That is not unprecedented: in the past, many statutory instruments have provided for powers to repeal bits of primary legislation. They are known as Henry VIII clauses because they cut off primary legislation, often at the head.
When the President of the Board of Trade introduced the Bill, he made a number of jokes about obscure language. It must be pointed out that, for the most part, statutory instruments are signed by Ministers. That gives them authority. If they want to make jokes about statutory instruments, let them do so at their own peril. They will look foolish, having quoted from instruments that they simply signed, or signed without bothering to read them, and took on trust the word of a civil servant. That is not a courageous attitude to take, especially when the self-same Ministers are claiming that they are improving the position by simplifying language—language that they did not simplify when they signed the instruments.
Time and again, the Government, through the Leader of the House, have refused to provide a Standing Order so that the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which may report on ambiguities, the unusual and unexpected use of Ministers' powers and, especially in the context of the President's speech, badly drafted instruments, could be in front of us before we debate either a prayer or an affirmative motion. What sort of attitude is that for a Government who mock statutory instruments and say that they want to make them clearer? The machinery that the House establishes ostensibly to clarify procedures often withholds that opportunity.
I shall give the House an example. It is not simply a trivial instance. The health and safety in mines instrument was laid on 6 August 1993 when the House was not sitting. it came into operation before the House returned after the summer recess, and the debate was held before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments made its report. The Government dare to come to the House and say that they are concerned about clarity in statutory instruments and the excessive powers of Ministers, when they deliberately brought an instrument before the House without any opportunity for debate before the powers came into operation.
It is worth examining the way in which the Government have used their powers. On average, about 2,000 statutory instruments are produced each year. No one denies that some regulation is required. because we must protect people from danger. We must improve health and safety at work, because work accidents cause changes in production and losses of production. They are costly; they produce ill feeling; there is a loss of time; and they may cause an injury or possibly a loss of life to those involved. Therefore, some regulation is accepted as necessary.
We have about 2,000 statutory instruments a year. In 1948, there were 2,858. That figure was topped by the Tories in 1962, who passed 2,877 statutory instruments. In the years of the last Labour Government, there were 2,224 in 1974, 2,251 in 1975, 2,248 in 1976, 2,202 in 1977 and 1,977 in 1978. In 1979—the year of the election—there were 1,770. According to this Government, those were the years of regulation when the Labour Government were pressing down on people's backs.
What have we had since this Minister took office? In 1991, there were 2,952 statutory instruments. In 1992, there was the all-time record in the history of Government and in the history of Parliament. No other Government


have produced the number of statutory instruments that this Government produced in 1992–3,359. That is nearly 1,500 more than the last year of the Labour Government.
Incidentally, if the Government now say that it is the problem of the Common Market—which they support—I would point out that only about 20 per cent. of the regulations come from the Common Market. The bulk of the regulations derive from the Government's tentacles, which are reaching into every aspect of life. The Government are not decentralising but imposing highly centralised bureaucracy. In 1993, the Government must have made an effort, because the number was down to 3,279.
I say to the Minister that he does not need this deregulation Bill, with its excessive powers for Ministers. All he need do is go round Departments and tell them to reduce the number of statutory instruments they produce, and they can do it. For example, if a national health service trust transfers its property, that is an instrument. When the Government go through all the NHS trusts, which have been created by statutory instruments, another 50, 100 or 150 statutory instruments have been produced.
The Government are pouring out statutory instruments like confetti, and the Bill is an excuse to try to cut the number. They could at least try to approach the number there was at the time of the Labour Government. How could the Labour Government manage with just over 2,000 statutory instruments a year, when they were supposed to be oppressing the nation? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to tell their Departments to have as their target the number of statutory instruments in 1978 or 1979. The number would be reduced by 1,500 a year.
Some Government Members are like renegade Trotskyists, in constant revolution with every institution of our society. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talks about cynicism affecting our national institutions, but the Government are up-ending every national institution we have.
The Bill deals with markets, for example—a subject raised by other hon. Members. Ordinary and decent markets provide a service, and they are run by small businesses, but some of them have empty stalls. Rawson and Kirkgate are two examples—excellent markets which my wife and I frequently patronise. The markets have some empty stalls, and the people in charge say that they do not want car boot sales and suchlike, which will knock out their livelihoods and put them on the dole. Some of the people involved say that they were traditional Tory voters but, like a lot of other people, are no longer. Why should the Government hammer on their backs by creating problems?
The Government have an obsession with the free market. The Minister has it more than most, although they are all tainted with the same madness. The Government will find that there are more problems and more people on the dole, not fewer. The situation will not be improved.
I turn now to the Government's attack on health and safety. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as everyone who has read it knows, had its own system for overhauling old regulations. The Secretary of State for Employment had the power to tell the Health and Safety Executive to overhaul its regulations. The executive would then submit its reports to the Minister, who would put them before Parliament. Has the Minister done that? Of course

not. It has never been done. The Health and Safety Executive has been required to produce more regulations, with no consolidation.
There are at least 350 statutory instruments that apply to health and safety at work. They should be consolidated, and the Minister has not done so. The Bill does not simplify health and safety at work, which, goodness knows, everybody needs. Why could we not have the health and safety legislation in one document? That would help workers, employers and people who are affected by the legislation. Why do we not go down that path?
Under the current system, the Minister can repeal health and safety legislation. Will the system take into account the section of the 1974 Act which requires that all delegated powers should be used to maintain and improve existing standards of health and safety at work? That was an important component of the legislation, and I look forward to the Minister saying that it is guaranteed in the Bill.
I want to make one last point—at least one other hon. Member wants to speak—about contracting out. Clause 57 is quite extraordinary. It is an order-making power which is separate from the order-making power at the beginning of the Bill, which provides an extra Committee to see whether the Minister is doing the decent thing. That Committee will be stuffed to the gills with Tories, so it will always say yes. In any case, the Committee will be organised by the Whips. We know what happens in this place.
The clause will take away the powers of Ministers and give them to outside contractors. I ask Conservative Members—do they want another Child Support Agency? Do they want more chief executives? When an hon. Member puts down a question, the Minister says it is not for him, and adds that he has sent the letter on to Ros Hepplewhite. She is on £50,000 a year for a 36-hour week, and she is always out of the office. The hon. Member then gets a letter back from the business manager of the CSA.
There is no ministerial accountability or, at best, there is diminished ministerial accountability. Clause 57 gives powers for affirmative orders. No affirmative orders are okay, although they are better than negative procedure. The debate will usually be one and a half hours after 10 o'clock, and no changes can be made.
Only about two Acts have ever been passed winch allowed statutory instruments to be amended. The vast bulk—this Bill is no exception—do not allow amendment, so hon. Members must take it or leave it. That is difficult for the House to accept. An hon. Member might like some part of the Bill, and dislike another part—even a single clause—but one has to take it all.
That is simply not good enough when we are being asked to transfer powers out of the House, out of the ministerial box and out of Whitehall. The powers will be transferred somewhere else, which affects accountability. No Minister said during the election, "I am going to shift my job outside. I do not really want a Ministry with such a range of powers. I am going to reduce them." Of course they did not. So what they are doing is outside their brief. It is against democracy. That is why we should oppose the legislation.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Just as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has great passion about what he believes in, Conservative Members have


great passion about removing the red tape which has tied down our businesses for far too long. If I have any reservation about the Bill, it is that it has taken so long to reach the Chamber.
I am the vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau. There are 3·5 million small businesses in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said how important small businesses were to the economy. They employ the vast bulk of the employed population. Small business men are the sort of people who work all hours. I should know, because I was a small business man once. They are the people who invest their life savings in their business. They risk everything to make sure that their business succeeds. They are the bedrock of Britain. If they fail, Britain fails. We must also pay heed to the many millions of people who are self-employed in Britain. If the self-employed are successful, they become employers.
It is the role of the Government to encourage small businesses. How can they encourage small businesses? By getting out of the hair of those small businesses. The Government create the conditions in which small businesses can grow. Today's interest rate cut will go some way to help them. The banks must pass on the interest rate cut to their businesses.
Many measures in the Bill will receive wide applause from our wealth creators. Another such measure is the rolling programme of deregulation. The Bill is a bonfire of regulations, but it is only one small bonfire. I sincerely hope that after this first bonfire many others will follow. The new rolling programme and the new task force led by Francis Maude will have plenty of work ahead of them in the years to come.
No regulation must be left unturned. If it is unnecessary, it should be scrapped. If it is complicated, it should be simplified. If it is not working, we should either repeal it or reform it. Labour Members have made accusations that we do not care about public service. That is patently not true. But we also care that our businesses should not face public strangulation.
The guidelines that are given to local authorities need to be made absolutely clear, to ensure that they are used in a way that is fair to all our business people and implemented uniformly. The same rules and regulations should be interpreted in exactly the same way throughout the country. I have heard all sorts of stories from my constituents about rules and regulations being interpreted in one way in one area of the constituency and in another way by someone else in another part of the constituency. All rules and guidelines should be cleared up.
We also need to ensure that our town hall bureaucrats are more helpful to small businesses to ensure that they can become far more profitable. I ran a small convenience store in Swansea. The environmental health officer visited me one day. He looked at the sink at the back of the shop, and said, "You wash your utensils here. Where do your staff wash their hands?" I said that they washed their hands either in the sink or in the toilet and cloakroom upstairs.
The environmental health officer said that that was not good enough and that I must tear out the sink and replace it with two sinks—one for washing the utensils and one for staff to wash their hands. I asked him to show a little common sense because we had carried on the business for many years and had never had a problem. I asked him to

show just a smidgen of common sense, but he refused. In the end, the heavy hand of the town hall came down and we had to tear out the sink and put in a new one at a cost of more then £250. The staff still washed the utensils in one side and went upstairs to the cloakroom to wash their hands, as they had always done. That is an example of where I hope that the deregulation Bill will prove effective.
Several hon. Members have mentioned recent abattoir legislation. There are many abattoirs in my constituency, some of which are very small, and I have received many letters from their owners, who are burdened by the extra cost of the new European Community regulation. It is costing one abattoir an extra £20,000 a year with no perceptible benefit to the consumer. We need to clear up that problem—I hope that the Bill will do so—so that one person can inspect abattoirs and do the work of both the meat inspector and the veterinary surgeon.
I know that I do not have time to mention all the measures contained in the Bill as another hon. Member wishes to speak, but many of them will be welcomed by businesses, both small and large. We must constantly study the rules and regulations. One criticism is that we have been in power 14 years, so why have we only just started to consider them.

Mr. Illsley: Tell us about it.

Mr. Evans: As we have heard today, the Labour party loves regulations and treats them in the same way as it treats taxation and spending. Rules and regulations are the very creed and heart of the Labour party. Labour Members think that they must keep on spending, taxing and regulating and that is the difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. It is one reason why, come the next general election, people will remember what we have done about rules and regulations, how we have freed businesses from unnecessary burdens and helped small businesses to flourish and earn more profits so that they can reinvest in their businesses and grow. Profit is not a dirty word, although we might think otherwise to hear Opposition Members talk.
The Government need to consult business more widely, especially small businesses. We need a litmus test whereby we consider how beneficial a rule or regulation will be to the consumer and how much it will cost industry. If it does not measure up, will be expensive, or if the consumer will hardly notice any benefit, that rule or regulation should not be introduced. We must stop rules and regulations before the Government introduce them, and that is one of the main reasons why I welcome the Bill and will back it.

Mr. Eric Illsley: In the few minutes left, I shall confine my remarks to that section of the Bill that relates to markets. It is clear that the deregulation task forces were made up from the private sector. There was no local authority involvement, which is probably why the Bill will not legislate for the private market sector and private markets will not be deregulated.
The Bill simply attacks local authorities that provide markets. It is also an attack on the National Association of British Market Authorities; its members have opposed, to an authority, its provisions. I took up the issue with members of the association, but, in all the replies I received, not one local authority that was a member of the association supported the Government viewpoint. Nor


does the National Market Traders Federation, which views the deregulation of markets as a threat to the livelihoods of its members.
In view of their responses, it is surprising that the Government decided to press on with those clauses. The Minister is aware that many of the local authorities wrote to him to complain about them and have raised petitions, which will be presented to the House or to the Prime Minister. Those authorities are campaigning against the provisions in the Bill.
It is said that the deregulation of markets will increase competition, but it is likely to be unfair competition from private markets set up on a temporary basis, operating for a few days a year in a certain area. There will be no consumer protection, continuity or permanence as private markets spring up all over the country.
I refer the House to a letter from the Department of the Environment on the idea that the regulation of markets will frustrate commercial initiatives. I cannot read the whole text, so I shall read just the salient points:
It was also made clear to the Commission that we had received very few complaints about market rights and that in 1987–88 the Government had reviewed the system. It concluded that legislation would be needed to abolish all market rights and that franchise rights, which are treated as property in English law, could not be compulsorily appropriated without compensation. Expropriation without compensation would also seem to infringe the European Convention on Human Rights which requires compensation for expropriation of a person's 'possessions'. In view of the requirements to pay compensation, the scarcity of complaints, the minimal part that markets play in U.K. trading activity and the possible damage to centuries of tradition and heritage that abolition would cause, the Government decided not to pursue the question of abolition any further. That remains the current position.
That letter was written in March 1991. What has changed in the past couple of years to encourage the Department of Trade and Industry to deregulate market rights? In that time, there have been very few, if any, complaints about the operation of local authority markets.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, many markets are in town centres and have a tradition that goes back for years. Many are historical or even tourist attractions. Many towns receive a lot of income from the establishment of their markets. My town is no different. Barnsley market was established under a royal charter in the 13th century. By the mid-1960s, Barnsley was known as a market town and its market was well known throughout the north of England. That tradition is likely to be lost through deregulation as a result of the Bill.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Barnsley is also a former mining area. The Government are to close down all the collieries, so I use the word "former" advisedly. As a consequence, the local authority has introduced a number of initiatives to try to regenerate the town centre and replace the trade lost as a result of the income reduction in the area. Those include the business partnership scheme, about which the Minister knows because he came to my constituency to launch it, and the local authority's partnership with Costain. The local authority is also spending city challenge money to regenerate the town centre. By the same token, the deregulation of markets will jeopardise the local economy.
At present, any organisation affected by proposals concerning market rights has the opportunity of judicial review and, more recently, of complaining to the ombudsman. Local authorities therefore have a duty to act reasonably, so there is no need for regulation.
We heard earlier about the proliferation of car boot sales dealing in stolen or counterfeit goods. A car boot sale in Barnsley took place at junction 36 of the motorway every Sunday morning. The police were out at 6 am every Sunday morning because people parked not only on the slip road and hard shoulder but sometimes on the inside lane of the M1. That is the type of hazard caused by unregulated car boot markets throughout the country.
Who will compensate market traders for their losses? According to the letter to which I referred, the Government decided that they could not proceed in 1991 because of compensation. As sole traders, market traders invest a lot of money in their businesses and will be affected by private, unregulated markets springing up in competition with them.
Many market traders go from market to market within a particular area. There are not so many market traders that we can service unregulated markets the length and breadth of the country. Market traders pay substantial rents for their market facility. Those markets will be undercut by private, unregulated markets with cheaper rents.
Markets also provide a direct income to the local authority which compensates for the loss of revenue support grant over the past few years through charge capping. Many local authorities will be looking to the Government for compensation in future revenue support grant because of the loss of income that they will suffer as a result of deregulation.
Finally, we have seen report after report about the amount of money that goes into the black economy. That money is lost in taxation revenues. Unregulated markets will contain more stolen and counterfeit goods. The markets accept that they do not need deregulation. They need, if anything, further regulation against the cowboys.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: As was almost inevitable with a Bill such as this, we have had a wide-ranging debate. My hon. Friends and Conservative Members have touched on such issues as markets, hearth and safety and consumer protection. At one point, we almost drifted into discussing European monetary union.
Three of the points that were raised may have shown some common ground between the two sides of the House. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that there were 1,500 more regulations in 1992 than there were in the last year of the Labour Government. The figure decreased slightly in 1993, but remained well above 1,300. As my hon. Friend said, it is not a one-sided business, and those Conservative Members who try to pretend that it is should know that the figures simply do riot add up, as 71 per cent. of current regulations were introduced by the present Government. It would have been helpful had a few Conservative Members recognised that and occasionally said that they were sorry if they believed that they had made mistakes. However, that word does not easily cross the lips of Conservative Members.
The second point of agreement is that virtually all hon. Members, except those who stuck slavishly to the Conservative Central Office brief, recognised that some regulation is necessary for good business standards, good consumer protection, good health and safety at work and good employee relations. Good regulation is an essential part of business. The difference is where we draw the line.
It is foolish and naive to suggest that those on one side of the argument believe that there should be no regulation and those on the other side are in favour of all regulation. There is a genuine recognition, except on the part of those too ideologically blind to see it, that some regulation is necessary to maintain good business standards.
Thirdly, it is readily recognised that regulation can be outdated. The President of the Board of Trade in introducing the Bill, gave us examples of those outdated regulations, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will when he replies to the debate. They are often amusing and there is no doubt that such regulations should and can be removed from the statute book. The difficulty is drawing the line, in terms not of outdated regulation but of regulation that is relevant, up to date and may be designed legitimately to protect certain interests.
My hon. Friends' speeches spotlighted a number of issues where the line between regulation and deregulation is not easy to draw. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) spoke of consumer protection, fire regulation and fire safety. In all those sectors it is difficult to draw the line, but I argue that the House of Commons should err on the side of safety and of the consumer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) talked about environmental protection and environmental standards. It is interesting that Conservative Members who, less than a year ago, were talking about the Government's success in terms of green policies and about the importance of such policies are now taking every opportunity to argue that environmental protection standards are a burden on business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) raised a number of important points about health and safety and the public interest. My hon. Friend is well versed in those issues as he represents the constituency in which last week's fire took place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will know, those of us who live in areas that have experienced substantial chemical fires realise how important it is that the House of Commons should have no intention of relaxing health and safety standards. The public interest must be paramount.
Finally in terms of the divide, I should like to draw attention to the fact that several of my hon. Friends talked about health and safety at work. We heard about what accidents cost individuals—loss of life or serious injury—and what they cost firms and society. All those bills are substantial. I should like to ask the Conservative ideologues why any reduction in standards is even being contemplated. Speech after speech showed that the new Conservative approach is to lower consumer standards, lessen environmental protection, disregard the public interest and reduce health and safety standards at work.
Let me give an example of the Government's intentions. In other parts of the Bill they say, in effect, "Believe us, trust us. We will do the right thing." Anyone who wants to examine as nasty a provision as the Bill contains should look at clause 26, which deals with redundancy. That provision breaks all traditional agreements and custom and practice in industry, yet there was no great pressure from employers for it, and there was no consultation whatsoever with employees or their organisations.
There may be an explanation. We are told regularly that good practice in industrial relations means honouring agreements, that it commits people on both sides of industry to keeping their word. I understand why the Government bob and weave, why they do not worry unduly about keeping their word. After all, it is they who said that there would be no tax increases, that there would be no increase in VAT. We have here the Government who have reneged on every promise made to the electorate in 1992. Now they are trying to inject into industrial relations the practices that have so devalued our political system. In that sense, let us keep them clear of industrial relations. We have agreed on some points, but their line on regulation and deregulation is one of contention, not of objectivity.
The key issue in the debate has been the constitutional implications of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the real issues—issues which should unite the House, not divide it. I wish that more Members had been present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—as I say regularly when I have the opportunity of winding up a debate in which the hon. Gentleman has taken part. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's speech should have come from the Government. His was the kind of speech that every hon. Member should make and to which we should all listen. It was echoed partly by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). Both hon. Gentlemen were concerned about the great new powers that can be assumed under clauses 1 to 4—the further centralisation of ministerial power, the further erosion of the power of the House of Commons.
I hope that I do not do the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) an injustice in saying that he let the cat out of the bag and provided grounds for people's worries when, referring to the deregulation initiative, he quoted ex-President Reagan saying:
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Later, he said that the Bill is just "a down payment". Is not that what concerns us—the fact that this Trojan horse of a Bill contains miscellaneous measures, deliberately designed not to generate much public opposition while creating a general power that will enable Ministers to get rid of provisions protecting the environment, health and safety and the consumer?
Ministers are empowering themselves to repeal and amend primary and secondary legislation. In practice, the House is being offered a debate lasting an hour and a half, after 10 pm, and no ability to amend the orders that we debate. Any hon. Member who has been in the House for some years understands the way in which such procedures work: we know how much interest will be taken in those debates. That is self-criticism, in that it is criticism of the House, but it is also an argument against giving Ministers more power without adequate safeguards.
The Government say, "Do not worry. Believe us: we will provide new safeguards. The new mechanism will not be autocratic or authoritarian." Let us examine those safeguards, and the way in which they will work. There will be a new scrutiny Committee, but at this stage, we know very little about it, because we await the findings of the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). However, I suspect that we already know two things.
First, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, the scrutiny Committee will have a Government majority: its members will be selected by Government Whips to ensure that. I can confidently say


that all hon. Members who have expressed doubts about the mechanism will not find a way on to that Committee under the patronage of the Whips. Secondly, Ministers have said in the Bill that they will not be bound by the advice and recommendations of the Committee. Given a Government majority and recommendations without force, what faith can the House put in that Committee?
The Government will tell us that they will adopt a new approach—that they will consult outside interests. I simply do not believe that, after 15 years, the Government have discovered the meaning of the word "consultation". Go and ask nurses and doctors in the national health service whether they believe in consultation with the Government; go and ask teachers about education changes; go and ask the police and the Lord Chief Justice about criminal justice legislation. Every interest group feels that the Government simply do not care about consultation: the mechanism will not work in that respect.
The power taken by the Government, however, does not relate merely to this deregulation initiative; it is an indefinite power, enabling the Government—by means of the mechanism in clauses 1 to 4—to repeal tomorrow's mistakes. It is not time limited: mistakes in future legislation, primary and secondary—legislation approved by the House of Commons—can be repealed under those clauses. The definition of what constitutes a burden will be left to a junior Minister.
I read with interest the Under-Secretary's speech to the Tory party conference.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Good speech.

Mr. Fatchett: I note that it won approval. Its timing and content struck me as apposite, given the overall theme of the conference. This is the Minister who will take all the various interests into account, in a sensitive manner. He said:
In fact, the Prime Minister urged me to behave like an absolute bastard.
That Minister was the first member of the B team to acknowledge that openly, and that is the first occasion on which the Prime Minister has no need to urge a Minister in that regard—for he is one; he needs no urging. That Minister is responsible for the judgments on deregulation.
Constitutional issues are raised, not only clauses 1 to 4, but in part II. They will set up the Government's new world and establish the way in which they have operated for a number of years. It is a world of new quangos, new agencies and new private contracts. It would be churlish of us to suggest that there will be no beneficiaries from that process. There will, of course, be beneficiaries because there are jobs to be had on the quangos.
We know to whom those jobs go—Tory party members and supporters. One of the key criteria for selection is whether a person has paid his or her party membership. We know that sometimes, particularly in the health service, jobs go to those who have just finished their service in the House of Commons or who happen to be married to a member of the Conservative party. Those appointees include, as a director of the King's Lynn and Wisbech trust, Thomas Shephard, the husband of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, as a director of the Addenbrooke's trust, Mary Archer, wife of Tory peer Lord Archer.
The Bill is part of the Government's sleaze philosophy. They produce jobs for themselves. The wheel turns full circle because, as part of the process, there will be contracts

to be won in the private sector. Who will the Bill help but directors and consultants, including Conservative Members, whose earnings outside the House will be boosted? About 600 directorships are disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests and many of them have a direct interest in privatisation.
The Government may argue that the Bill will improve efficiency and standards in public life. Before the President of the Board of Trade advances that argument, he should consider the Child Support Agency and the way in which Group 4 has operated in our prisons. Before the Government talk about new standards in public life, they should consider Westminster city council, the Welsh Development Agency and the national health service trusts up and down the country, and then take note of the comment by the Public Accounts Committee that there has been a substantial decline in the standards of public life.
Before Conservative Members vote for the Bill, I remind them that the parts of it that deal with contracting out will further reduce the accountability of Ministers. Surely it is a basic principle of our democracy that those who spend public money should be accountable for it.
There cannot be a Member of Parliament who has not been irritated because he has tabled a parliamentary question or written a letter to a Minister, only to be told that the reply will come from the chief executive of an agency. We want proper democratic constitutional accountability. The Bill will take the process of undermining that accountability a stage further because it will mean that, in some cases, the body that will be held accountable will be not even the agency, but a private sector organisation or contractor.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an important point when he rightly argued that the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, could be subject to privatisation. Does not that show the nature of the Government's proposals? We want assurances on that matter and I hope that the Minister will provide them.
The sections on contracting out are part of what Professor Peter Hennessy has called the "alibi society". When challenged about British Aerospace this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that it was not his responsibility. All the clauses in the Bill are designed to underpin the alibis. The Government are saying, "We are just the Government, we do not know what is happening in society and we do not know what is happening with public money."
One thing has been clear in much of the rhetoric of Conservative Members' speeches. While the Government have no vision of an industrial strategy for Britain, they have a view that Britain can survive and compete with a low-wage, low-security, low-skills economy. That is simply not the case in the 1990s.
The Bill is a missed opportunity. The Government should have produced an industrial strategy that allows Britain to compete in the 1990s and beyond, a strategy that invests in research and development, in skills and in the industries that will make Britain successful. Instead, we have heard a great deal of 19th century rhetoric coupled with a Bill designed to give more power to the centre. It has authoritarian and draconian implications, which is why it is a bad Bill.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill. I hope that, even at this late stage, some Tory Members will


have that courage to stop this centralising measure and the creeping undermining of the power of the House and join us in trying to protect our democracy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs(Mr. Neil Hamilton): A moment ago, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that the order-making powers in the Bill could be used to repeal parts of future legislation. That is not so. Evidently, he did not get very far in his reading because clause 1(5)(c) states that the Bill will apply only to Acts passed
before or in the same Session
as the Bill. That appears at the bottom of page 2, so I hope that he will get a little further into the Bill before the Committee stage begins.
A wise man once said—I am not going to quote from my speech at Blackpool—[Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for the advertisement. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and sell the video. A wise man once said:
Trade and commerce, if they were not made of rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way.
I have always believed that government had a limited capacity to do good and a virtually infinite capacity to do harm, but the Opposition have a touching faith in government and legislation as a universal cure-all and restorative. Of course, experience teaches us—I hope that I shall now carry Labour Members with me—that government is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
There is in this country today a widespread demand for deregulation. It is expressed in the columns of newspapers by luminaries such as Mr. Christopher Booker, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). Every Member of Parliament's postbag has been groaning with complaints about excessive regulation. Small and large businesses—[Interruption.] Perhaps constituents do not consider it worth while to write to Labour Members, but mine certainly write to me.
Small and large businesses, charities and the voluntary sector are prone to complain. They say that regulation is intrusive, time-consuming, irritating and, more to the point, they say that it reduces our competitiveness as a nation, which was the mainspring of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's opening speech.

Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Christopher Booker, who writes for The Sunday Telegraph and who made some disparaging remarks about this excellent Bill in the most recent edition of that newspaper. I am the secretary of the Back-Bench deregulation committee and I twice invited Mr. Booker to address our committee. I did not receive a reply to either invitation which must mean that Mr. Booker has been drowned under a welter of paperwork.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not prepared to criticise Christopher Booker in this instance because he has done a good job in drawing to our attention many of the absurdities of regulation. I shall, however, consider cancelling my subscription to The Sunday Telegraph and taking up Viz.
The Government resolved to do something about the burden of regulation. We put together a programme to attack the regulatory overload at every level. It has not been over-hasty or ill thought out. Indeed, we have devoted a great deal of time not only to the Bill but to all the other deregulatory measures referred to in the explanatory documents that were published at the same time as the Bill.
I warned my colleagues at the beginning of the exercise that we were in danger of producing a policy that would be popular in the country. Undeterred by this departure from normal practice, we plunged ahead with what I believe is the most comprehensive initiative the country has ever seen. The Bill deals with just one aspect of that, but a very important one—the problem of over-regulation in Acts of Parliament.
I have been subjected to much criticism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) mentioned a moment ago. On the one hand, I have been criticised by Christopher Booker, who recently described the Bill as
a mouse from a mountain of bureaucracy".
On the other hand, I have been described in different language by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). In some respects he is a natural deregulator—I have always been impressed by his deregulated approach to English syntax—and he is, as we know, a master of understatement. He described our proposals for deregulation as
unleashing the killing fields of industry.
The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union produced a very nice photograph of me in a magazine that it published recently, under the headline:
Deregulation Minister Neil Hamilton: Stop this man"—
with an article that, as usual, was full of unfounded alarmist scaremongering. The union does not even seem to recognise the benefits that its members could derive from a substantial programme of deregulation.
We do not have to take risks with health and safety, or any other measures involving the protection of the community at large, to make huge deregulatory gains. I am sorry that the hon. Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) failed to recognise that and launched into hyperboles accusing us of despotism and goodness knows what else.

Mr. Heppell: I spoke about the subjects that I did only because I have written evidence. I have received a letter from Lord Strathclyde about the legislation about foam in furniture and the legislation about children's nightwear, which were investigated by the task force. I have received letters from the Department of Transport about the review of bus drivers' hours. I spoke only about things that were documented by Government Departments.

Mr. Hamilton: Every regulation in existence is under review and will be measured against the test of cost and benefit. Where the costs are justified by the benefits, nothing will happen to the regulations. For the hon. Gentleman to take the view, however, that we should never reconsider any legislation in sectors where there is significant emotional appeal, smacks of the attitude that the Roman Catholic Church had to Galileo in the 14th or 15th century. We must ensure that all the legislation currently in force in this country is proportionate and that it does not go further than is necessary. That is not to say that we must


throw the baby out with the bathwater. The trouble with people like the hon. Gentleman is that they want to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.
I take as an example health and safety—a subject: which tugs at the heart-strings. Opposition Members have placed great emphasis on that during the debate, especially on clause 27, which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned. What that clause permits us to do is what we can do in respect of legislation that has been passed since 1974 under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The problem with legislation that was on the statute book before 1974 is that even when it is utterly redundant we cannot remove it because of a provision in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 that compels us to keep it on the statute book.
I can give the hon. Gentleman several examples. I do not think that I have much time in which to do so, but let us take as an example the Agricultural Ladders Regulations, which go into great detail about the joints to be used in ladders, the distance between the rungs and the number of nails that have to be used in their construction. Today, there are British standards covering all those artefacts and a modern set of regulations is in the process of being introduced. There must, therefore, be a case for removing from the statute book useless legislation that does not contribute to people's safety. We are clearing away a clutter of redundancy.
During the investigation that was performed by the Department of Employment in respect of health and safety measures, we discovered about 30 statutory instruments, the primary legislation governing which was repealed long ago but which were still on the database and presumably still being observed by many businesses long after the statutory provisions had been repealed. We have, therefore, got rid of those—for example, the Florists Overtime Regulations 1938; the Bread, Flour, Confectionery and Sausage Manufacture (Commencement of Employment) Regulations 1939; the Glass Bottles and Jars (Overtime) Regulations 1938. All that garbage has been cleared away from the statute book. In no way does that prejudice the health and safety of people working in those industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is a joke."] I leave the jokes to sit on the Opposition Benches.
I am concerned to rebut the criticisms of the Bill. While Christopher Booker has accused us of unleashing a farrago of trivia, the accusations of the Opposition would give anybody cause to believe that we were indulging in the legislative equivalent of the slaughter of the first-born. There are two extremes—first Mr. Booker saying that we are not going far enough, and then the Opposition saying that we are going too far. I find myself cast in an unfamiliar role as a middle-of-the-road moderate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) urged us not to be too cautious, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has done sterling service in the cause of deregulation. Although the Bill, and the measures that will be introduced if the order-making power is granted to us, may constitute small and modest changes in themselves, when they are taken together in sum there is a great gain in prospect. Of course, there are complaints that the Bill does not go far enough, but the Bill is only one part of a wider package of deregulation.
For example, enforcement officers' decisions can cause inconsistency of interpretation in different parts of the country. The ability of environmental health officers to

classify Tipp-Ex correction fluid and Brillo pads as substances hazardous to health under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 must be examined. The European Community's generation of regulations must also be examined, as must delegated legislation currently in force, to ensure that we do:not impose unnecessary costs on businesses—that does not need the powers in the Bill. Finally, primary legislation must be examined, and that is the purpose of the Bill.
As hon. Members know, the contents of the Bill come in two forms. First, there are items of deregulation that will not be the subject of the order-making power, but stand on the face of the Bill. There are a couple of dozen such measures, including market charters and other provisions that have been mentioned during the debate. Secondly, there is a list of about 55 items illustrating how the order-making power could be applied. If hon. Members considered the way in which those two sets of proposals are put together they would discover that the order-making power is designed to be used almost entirely in wholly uncontroversial areas, where I hope that we shall have no difficulty in securing a consensus across the Floor of the House.
I do not believe that the contents of the Bill are trivial. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce do not think that they are trivial either. Even the Consumers Association has said some nice things about the Bill, saying that the so-called King Henry VIII provisions represent
a partial improvement on the current procedures for parliamentary scrutiny and secondary legislation. They could help avoid the kind of low-profile law-changing that takes place when statutory instruments are debated in the middle of the night in an empty House of Commons.
That goes to the very essence of the difficulty that we are here to discuss.
Even under the much-vaunted procedures for primary legislation, legislation is often passed by the House with inadequate scrutiny. I am as committed as any Member of the House to a proper measure of scrutiny for legislation. I yield to no one, not even to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in my attachment to parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, but I have only seven minutes. There will be plenty of time for me to debate with the hon. Gentleman in Committee.
Judging by the criticisms levelled against us in the debate, anyone might think that the present procedures of the House were exhaustive. They are often exhausting, but the scrutiny that we apply to legislation is still not exhaustive. I have often sat in the Chamber or in Committee when pages and pages of Government or other amendments have been introduced in the last stages of the discussion of a Bill, and the Whips are scurrying about across the Floor trying to get people to stop talking and sit down, so that we can all get home early. Vast tranches of legislation go through without any discussion. The difference between the failings of the legislative procedures that we have had hitherto and what we are proposing in the Bill is this. Whereas those failings are in respect of burdens that are imposed on the country, if there


are procedural failures in respect of our proposals at least they are in areas where we are reducing the burdens that are imposed on the people.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) complained that these powers were introduced for the convenience of Ministers. They are being introduced for the convenience of the country and for the convenience of the businesses that generate the wealth and the jobs that Opposition Members profess to support. A large number of proposals in the Bill will protect parliamentarians against the charge that despotism is being imposed on businesses.
I believe that our proposals will receive significant scrutiny. That scrutiny will be much greater in practice than that received by the measures that we propose to repeal. We have, of course, been subjected to the usual criticisms from Opposition Members—that this is all a put-up job to line the pockets of our friends in the City, and so on—but nothing could be further from the truth. The idea that reducing costs on businesses is only of benefit to businesses is extraordinary, because those costs feed through into the wider community in the form of higher prices in the shops and, in particular, unemployment.
Opposition Members are not concerned about unemployment or they would saddle this country with the greatest single package of regulatory measures and business burdens that this country has ever seen by signing up to the social chapter and the whole package of socialist garbage that they have in their knapsacks and which they are afraid to bring out at the moment. No doubt they will be revealed towards the next general election.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was right when in the debate on the Queen's Speech he said
I welcome the legislation in that context, and I shall not be offended if its basis is the use of statutory instruments. Indeed, I find it difficult to conceive how it could be done otherwise".—[Official Report, 24 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 484.]
I agree.
Deregulation is not entirely a new issue, because another Conservative Government, in 1896—nearly 100 years ago—produced a very important deregulation measure. In the Locomotives on Highways Act 1896, which hon. Members will no doubt remember, the provisions of the Locomotives Act 1865 were repealed. In particular, it said that any locomotive in motion must be preceded by not less than 60 yards by a man carrying a red flag, constantly displayed. When we repealed the "red flag" Act, we enabled the British motor industry to be set up—[Interruption.] Times have certainly changed since the Labour party was in Government, when the British motor industry was flat on its back. Today it is up and running and we will again be the biggest exporter of cars in Europe.
Opposition Members would have been opposed to getting rid of the Locomotives on Highways Act, because no doubt they would have accused us of unleashing the killing fields on the roads of this country. The environmental extremists would have opposed any change on environmental grounds, no doubt supported by the latter-day political gerbils in the Liberal party. Without that change, a modern economy could never have developed. Labour's policies would put a man with a red flag in front

of British industry once again. Of course, Labour is not so keen on the red flag these days. By its opposition to the Bill, it proves that it is still the party of red tape.
The Bill will slice through red tape. It will free the businesses of this country, which generate the wealth and the jobs, from the bonds of useless and excessive regulation. That will be an extremely popular policy. Just as the Opposition, as Johnny-Come-Latelies, have had to adopt our policies in so many areas of national life, whether on taxation, ownership in industry or whatever, they will come to see the wisdom of adopting a policy of deregulation. The country knows that that is what it wants. We know what it wants. That is why we shall use this policy to get elected once again in however many years' time it is.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 320.

Division No. 110]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Denham, John


Bell, Stuart
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dobson, Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela



Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Enright, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gapes, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John


Cann, Jamie
George, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gould, Bryan


Coffey, Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)






Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Moriey, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hanson, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harvey, Nick
Mudie, George


Henderson, Doug
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Hara, Edward


Home Robertson, John
Olner, William



Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prescott, John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Tessa
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooney, Terry


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Salmond, Alex


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Alice
Stott, Roger


Mandelson, Peter
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wallace, James


Milburn, Alan
Walley, Joan


Miller, Andrew
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N





Watson, Mike
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Nigel Jones.


Winnick, David



Wise, Audrey





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Devlin, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Faber, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Body, Sir Richard
Fishburn, Dudley


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Booth, Hartley
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gallie, Phil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Budgen, Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Giilan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Churchill, Mr
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cos, Sebastian
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Horam, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Straf'rd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Richards, Rod


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maginnis, Ken
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Needham, Richard
Trimble, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





Walden, George
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wilkinson, John


Waller, Gary
Willetts, David


Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Waterson, Nigel
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.


Widdecombe, Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 319, Noes 282.

Division No.111]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ancram, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Eggar, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, Dudley


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forman, Nigel


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butcher, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butler, Peter
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gill, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa






Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Nick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawksley, Warren
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry

Needham, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Nelson, Anthony


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hendry, Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Horam, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Straf'rd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Richards, Rod


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maginnis, Ken
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary





Sumberg, David
Walden, George


Sweeney, Walter
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sykes, John
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thumham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trimble, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Barnes, Harry
Dalyell, Tarn


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Denham, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dixon, Don


Benton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H.


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Enright, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Etherington, Bill


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Byers, Stephen
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garrett, John


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coffey, Ann
Gordon, Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Connarty, Michael
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Livingstone, Ken


Grocott, Bruce
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Gunnell, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hain, Peter
Loyden, Eddie


Hail, Mike
Lynne, Ms Liz


Hanson, David
McAllion, John


Hardy, Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Harman, Ms Harriet
McCartney, Ian


Harvey, Nick
Macdonald, Calum


Henderson, Doug
McFall, John


Heppell, John
McKelvey, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
McLeish, Henry


Hoey, Kate
Maclennan, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
McMaster, Gordon


Home Robertson, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hood, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Madden, Max


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mahon, Alice


Hoyle, Doug
Mandelson, Peter


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hutton, John
Martlew, Eric


Illsley, Eric
Maxton, John


Ingram, Adam
Meacher, Michael


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Meale, Alan


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Michael, Alun


Jamieson, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)
Milburn, Alan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jowell, Tessa
Morgan, Rhodri


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morley, Elliot


Keen, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Khabra, Piara S.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Mudie, George


Kirkwood, Archy
Mullin, Chris


Leighton, Ron
Murphy, Paul


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lewis, Terry
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Litherland, Robert
O'Brien, William (Normanton)





O'Hara, Edward
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Olner, William
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Spellar, John


Pickthall, Colin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pike, Peter L.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack



Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Redmond, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walley, Joan


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, Jimmy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Clare



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Deregulation and Contracting out Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder, the Forestry Commissioners or the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce for making payments under contracts entered into under or by virtue of the Act;
(b) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or office-holder in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mr. Cryer: The resolution is extremely unusual because it not only authorises
the payment out of money provided by Parliament of…any sums required by a Minister of the Crown",
but requires exactly the same authority to be given to "an office-holder". That provision relates to clause 57, which provides that a Minister's powers can be transferred to a person designated by the Minister as an office-holder. It has to be done through an affirmative order, but it is an extraordinary power as people who are not elected to this place or appointed by the Prime Minister can, in essence, carry out all the duties of a Minister of the Crown. There are three relatively minor exceptions to that rule. For example, such people cannot produce delegated legislation.
The House should not approve the motion, which gives a person designated as an office-holder the power to demand money given to him by the measure. We are talking not about authorising a Minister to obtain money from Parliament but about giving money to someone outside Parliament and Government who is appointed by the Minister. [Interruption.] People who are outside Parliament can be authorised to spend money—a serious erosion of Parliament's authority to spend money. From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether people like him and me would be those designated persons—termed "office-holder" in the motion. The answer to that question is no, because the Minister would not appoint us. He would appoint people whom he considered to be suitable to carry out the deregulation of the legislation.
Experience shows that giving such powers to office-holders outside Parliament has proved less than satisfactory. There have been occasions when giving Ministers the authority to spend money has been less than satisfactory. To take the process one stage further to give authority to the person termed an "office-holder", as the motion provides, seems to be much less satisfactory. That is why we should vote against the motion.
In its eighth report, on the proper conduct of public business, the Public Accounts Committee has guided the attention of the House to the very measures that the Minister asks us to approve in the motion. The office-holders would be akin to the services of PSA

Services that were required to operate on a fully commercial basis from 1 April 1990. On page 9, paragraph 3 explains what happened. It states that the
PSA Services' financial system broke down to the extent that they had to charge £65·6 million to their own Vote instead of being able to recover it from their customers.
The motion asks us to give authority to one of the office-holders, if he makes a mess of things, to demand money to spend on whatever service—deregulation or anything within the terms of the legislation, which is widely drafted. We would be giving carte blanche to the office-holder, whose expenditure would be authorised by the motion.
The PSA service is perhaps not the best example. Paragraph 12 on page 11 of the Public Accounts Committee report refers to the Welsh Development Agency, which parallels the office-holder mentioned in the motion. The agency was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which at paragraph 14 stated:
We remind the Welsh Office of their obligations for effective oversight of non-departmental public bodies.
That is severe criticism of a Government body and Minister of the Crown. I shall not go into the details of why they were criticised, but it was for careless and irresponsible control of taxpayers' money in the Welsh Development Agency, which was not controlled by the Welsh Office.
A Minister now asks us to support a money resolution, despite the fact that the improper control of lavish expenditure has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which had to remind the Department of its obligations to contol money. In that context, we should hardly support a money resolution that authorises
the payment out of money provided by Parliament of…any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder
and two other bodies.
Incredibly, the resolution also authorises the expenditure of any sums required by
the registrar of approved driving instructors".
For a Minister who is trying to simplify matters to ask the House to approve a money resolution that gives carte blanche to the registrar of approved driving instructors as well as those peculiar "office-holders" who, under the terms of the resolution, include
the holder of an office the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament
is a dangerous precedent to set.
I opened my speech by saying that this was an unusual money resolution. From time to time, I comment on money resolutions, the majority of which do not extend to this degree. Parliament's powers, which are supposed to be safeguarded carefully, are twofold: first, the right to control revenue from taxation; and, secondly, the right to control expenditure. Those rights will be taken out of Parliament's hands.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am worried. My hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the interesting clause 57 and how it would apply in this case. Will the traditional role of the accounting officer change if the money resolution operates as my hon. Friend suggests? Will the accounting officer, who would normally be the permanent secretary, have to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Cryer: The clause would not allow an accounting officer to hold his usual powers. As my hon. Friend said, the accounting officer is normally a permanent secretary. Under the Exchequer and Audit Control Departments Act


1886, the accounting officer has the duty, obligation and power to draw the Comptroller and Auditor General's attention to expenditure with which he disagrees.
An "office-holder" could be a contractor—let us say, Seedy Services Ltd., set up by half a dozen Conservative Members—

Mr. Fatchett: Ex-Conservatives.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. Four or five Conservative Back-Benchers with an inside knowledge may set up Seedy Services Ltd. and put forward their case to the Minister in order to undertake the services listed in the Bill. The accounting officer has a duty to report to the Comptroller and Auditor General and allow the Public Accounts Committee to examine expenditure which the Comptroller and Auditor General recommends to the Property Services Agency.
Money resolutions such as this are the defining characteristic that allows an accounting officer to go to the Secretary of State and say that he does not agree with the expenditure. That is a powerful check within a Department.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether Ministers have it in mind that office-holders would give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Cryer: There is no doubt that office-holders would fall under the general powers of the Select Committee to require persons to give evidence before it and papers to be presented. If the PAC required an office-holder to attend, presumably that office-holder would be required to do so under the general powers of the Select Committee system.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I served on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years and I do not recall one occasion when we took evidence from anyone other than a civil servant. If a change is to be introduced, Ministers should make it clear at the Dispatch Box today.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend will recall that the Child Support Agency, which is a good illustration of the powers contained in the money resolution, referred to an office-holder—a person appointed to carry out the duties of a Minister. Ministers who introduce an ineffective Act which produces great bitterness and anger among ordinary decent people who are meeting their responsibilities should be accountable.
The equivalent of an office-holder in the Bill and money resolution has been appointed—Ros Hepplewhite. If we write to a Minister or table questions in the House about office-holders and accountability in respect of the money resolution, will we get a reply from a Minister?
When we write to the Child Support Agency we are told by a Minister that the chief executive has been asked to reply. We then get a letter from an assistant to the office-holder because she is out of the office. I do not know whether that is the characteristic experience of my hon. Friends, but I do not get letters from Ros Hepplewhite. She is paid £50,000 and attends the office for 36 hours a week. That seems to be a generous payment.
If that is the position that the office-holder will occupy, my hon. Friend has lighted on another reason why we should vote against the money resolution because it stands for the diminution of day-to-day parliamentary accountability.
Parliamentary questions by Back Benchers are universally accepted as an important method of accountability. There has been a long argument lasting two of three years about placing the letters from the executives of the variouis agencies—the equivalent of office-holders under the money resolution—on the record. At first, they were put in the Library; now, some are incorporated in Hansard. It was a long struggle and we do not want more diminutions.
It is unsatisfactory to receive letters from office-holders or directors of executive agencies instead of directly from Ministers. Ministers are elected and reply at the Dispatch Box to debates on Second Reading. Secretaries of State start the legislation. Ministers should answer any charges through questions and cross-examination in the House.
There is little point in electing people to the House of Commons unless we maintain the scrutiny and examination that we were elected to carry out. The money resolution provides an evasion of that responsibility. It is alarming that authority is being given to bodies, persons and individuals outside the House to spend money raised by taxpayers.
I recall suggestions during the 1970s and early 1980s that we should nationalise on a large scale through delegated powers and enabling legislation. The press were up in arms; they said that we would be turning the country into a Marxist state overnight. That was simply untrue, but there is no balancing criticism from the newspapers today at the erosion of parliamentary democracy that the Opposition consider important. We want to enable the scrutiny to continue.
I should like to refer to another case on which the Public Accounts Committee commented. It is the case of Wessex regional health authority—an outside body provided by a Minister with money voted by Parliament. We are told:
The authority acknowleded that a fundamental conflict between their interests and those of Wessex Regional Integrated Systems Ltd arose when the authority appointed a director of the company with whom the regional health authority had a contract to supply computer services to act as regional information systems manager. The authority also allowed a secondee from IBM to advise them on the purchase, without competition, of an IBM computer for £3·3 million at a time when it could have been purchased for £500,000 to £1 million less.
If this money resolution is approved, will that sort of scandal occur again and again and again? How will the Minister hold such people to account?
It is quite true that the office-holders will be appointed, under clause 57, by order. That clause says:
(1) this section applies to any function of a Minister or office-holder—
(a) which is conferred by or under any enactment; and
(b) which, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law, may be exercised by an officer of his".
Under the existing system, where a Minister of the Crown delegates power to a senior civil servant the Minister continues to be responsible. We all know the tried and tested formula whereby, if we claim that civil servants are becoming too powerful, the Minister says, "Civil servants should not be attacked as they cannot answer back. I am the Minister responsible." The Minister allocates duties to civil servants but is himself accountable to the House of Commons.
When a duty goes outside, to an office holder, direct responsibility is diminished. The Minister is shaking his head. I hope that he will say that the office-holder will be just like a civil servant, in which case all the questions tabled by Members will be answered by the Minister, and


the method of expenditure will be the same as previously. Why, therefore, should the money resolution contain a reference to
any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder"?
Thus a person in addition to the Minister will have authority to receive payment out of moneys provided by Parliament.
This is a matter of considerable concern. The Public Accounts Committee has produced a quite damning report entitled "The Proper Conduct of Public Business". My hon. Friends will have read that report, and I shall not go through all the cases with which it deals. I have already mentioned one or two of them. The Committee mentions cases in which there has been a less than adequate standard in the expenditure of taxpayers' money. In the case of IBM, it is clear that there was a degree of favouritism, if not downright corruption, when a person from IBM recommended a computer that would cost the taxpayer more than £500,000, and possibly as much as £1 million, extra.
We want some autonomy, subject to tight ministerial control. But a move right out to private contractors acting as Ministers means that the only accountability that we have disappears. As has been said, we have a system whereby the accounting officer can report to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a very powerful weapon in the hands of the accounting officer, who is normally the permanent secretary. It is a threat intended to guide expenditure—a threat that the Labour Government had to withstand several times between 1974 and 1979. When the Department of Industry financed Concorde, there was no minute from the accounting officer about the expenditure—research and development costs were £1 billion. The only three minutes ever recorded concerned the workers' co-operatives in Liverpool—at KME—at Meriden and in Scotland, at the Daily News.
We are talking about a powerful check on expenditure. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I believe that that check should be retained, so that it can be carried through in the Public Accounts Committee. That is a reaction, however. The money has already gone. In the case of Wessex health authority, the computer has been installed, and is probably barely working; it will probably be discarded and sold to a technical college for about £10. The money has gone, and a report has been produced saying that it should not happen again.
The motion produces a basis for repeating the errors of the past. We do not want the PAC to examine things and report to the House that they are wrong. We want a secure system to be installed beforehand. The Government claim to care a great deal about taxpayers' money, although they do not seem to mind handing over large chunks of it to their friends through private companies. This may well be such an occasion—which is why it is so important for checks to be made on motions such as this. The Minister did not give a very good response in his winding-up speech; I hope that he will give a comprehensive account now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under the training programmes of the old Department of Employment, the Comptroller and Auditor General could, in effect, follow public money all the way to the trainee. All along the line—particularly when the skill centres existed—there was an

element of accountability for public moneys, right down to the last instructor, who was basically paid by the state for the skills agency.
Today, that arrangement does not exist. Accountability for public moneys extends only as far as the last civil servant in situ. The moment that the money is transmitted from the training and enterprise council to the training contractor, the National Audit Office can go no further. Interestingly, the NAO visits TECs but seems to go no further than that point. Is that not an example of what happens when functions previously performed by civil servants are privatised? Is not an element of accountability lost?

Mr. Cryer: I shall be interested to learn from the Minister how the NAO will examine office-holders. He mentioned the Department of Employment; the PAC refers to that Department, and to monitoring expenditure on the technical and vocational education initiative. The Department accepted that there was not adequate scrutiny. If there is not adequate scrutiny within government, what will it be like outside government, at one stage removed? It will be even worse.
We know the proclivity of certain private enterprise organisations and their members to line their pockets. It appears that, without adequate control, the bent and corrupt will have a field day. I hope that that will not happen, but it is a possibility.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cryer: I must demur. Debates on money motions are becoming increasingly popular.

Mr. Illsley: I want to raise the question of compensation for market authorities. I mentioned it earlier, but I would like to hear a more detailed explanation from the Minister. Will compensation be available to authorities that will lose their market franchise rights as a result of the Bill, and have the Government made allowance for that compensation?
Let me quote from a letter written by the Department of the Environment to the National Association of British Market Authorities in March 1991. The letter deals specifically with compensation and states:
It was also made clear to the Commission that we had received very few complaints about market rights and that in 1987–88 the Government had reviewed the system.
In a written reply to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 31 March 1993, a Minister said that the Department of the Environment had received 15 complaints about local authority markets in the two years since January 1991. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that is a very small number. It therefore seems that we are to spend a great deal of money on deregulating local authority market rights although there have been very few complaints about the markets. It appears that much of that money could be spent on compensation claims made against the Department. The Minister shakes his head, but I shall read on.
The letter from the Department of the Environment stated that it had been concluded that
legislation would be needed to abolish all market rights and that franchise rights, which are treated as property in English law, could not be compulsorily appropriated without compensation.


Under English law, market rights are treated as property. That was the Government's advice to the association when it was decided in 1991 not to go ahead with deregulation. At that time, the Government concluded that compensation would be payable in respect of the rights that were being appropriated. What has changed since then and, in view of the likely cliams, why is there no reference to compensation in the Bill or the motion?
The Department's letter to the National Association of British Market Authorities continued:
Expropriation without compensation would also seem to infringe the European Convention on Human rights which requires compensation for expropriation of a person's `possessions'. In view of the requirements to pay compensation, the scarcity of complaints, the minimal part that markets play in United Kingdom trading activity and the possible damage to centuries of tradition and heritage that abolition would cause, the Government decided not to pursue the question of abolition any further.
That was the position in 1991 and, as far as I am aware, nothing much has changed since then. The question of compensation is still open.
NABMA has already told the Minister that it is likely strenuously to oppose any deregulation of market franchise rights which does not include the payment of compensation. In its submission to the Government, it stated:
While the Government may decide to legislate to deny local authorities compensation the Association wish to make it clear at this stage that such a proposal would be strenuously opposed.
I take that to mean that there will be a legal challenge to the Government on the basis of the position outlined by the Department of the Environment in 1991, which was that compensation should be payable.
The Government have argued that there is no case for compensating local authorities because there is an idea that, as public bodies, local authorities should not receive compensation for any deregulation of their rights. However, NABMA has challenged that notion and I agree with that challenge. The Government have changed their mind since 1991. The property rights of local authorities are the same as those of private individuals. I believe that compensation claims will be laid at the Government's door. Indeed, the association mentions taking the matter to the European courts. In its submission to the Government, it stated that the Government had ignored the principles set out in the Department of the Environment's letter of 1991. It continued:
It appears to the Association that if such a proposal is pursued then there is an opportunity for making an application to the European Courts.
In other words, the Government will be challenged in the courts in this country and in Europe. If those compensation claims are successful, it could lay a substantial bill at the Government's door.
It is useful to consider the most recent Bills about market rights—the Bexley London Borough Council Bill in 1986 and the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill in 1991. I recall them well; I spoke in one of the debates. A private Bill came before the House to establish a market in the Redbridge area. At the time, both private Bills—one relating to Bexley, the other to Redbridge—made allowance for compensation before they left the House. The authorities that were affected by those Bills received compensation.
The House of Commons has, therefore, acknowledged recently that compensation shall be payable to a local authority in respect of the loss of market rights. That is a very recent precedent and I think that the Government will be required to follow it.
As I said earlier, many local authorities are members of the National Association of British Market Authorities. I said earlier that I wrote to all 133 of them. Of all the replies that I received, not one agreed with the Government's proposals. Every one of the local authorities disagreed, partly because those local authorities were denied any form of consultation by the deregulation task forces.
One of the authorities informed me that the direct income that it received each year from its market was £750,000. If one multiplies that by the number of market authorities in the country and by the number of years' trading that authorities will lose, the compensation bills start to add up.
The motion ought to take account of that compensation, which the Government are likely to have to pay.

Mr. Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has mentioned the serious compensation problems that arise from the Bill and some of the shortcomings in the motion. He has spoken eloquently about the difficulties that it will cause market traders and the apparent lack of compensation from Government. My hon. Friend could have gone a stage further because, as a result of the Bill, there will be a number of potential losers who could rightly demand a compensation package from Ministers, yet there is nothing to that effect in the motion.
First, market traders are potential losers—for example, the traders at the Darlington market. I met local market traders earlier this week and was informed that there were about 140 full-time employees and 200 part-time employees. Darlington's indoor market, which has been well-established for many years, is professionally managed and provides high standards of consumer care. Similarly, there are 200 stalls in the outdoor market. Each of those small businesses is potentially implicated by this deregulation measure. I ask the Minister, on behalf of those traders, what compensation will be available to each of those small businesses in the event of the door being opened to cowboy operators, operating on the outskirts of town, artificially undercutting the legitimate business work of the established market traders in the Darlington market?
The Bill, and the motion, will not only affect the traders. As in other market towns, Darlington's market acts as a magnet for shoppers into the town centre in general, and I know that there are some worries among town centre traders about the potential loss of income that will arise from the measure. Yet I see nothing in the way of a compensation package for large or small companies operating in Darlington town centre.
The third set of potential losers are the people about whom I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned—the ordinary consumers. They now have certain guarantees, because the traders who operate in Darlington market are legitimate. People know that those traders are not fly-by-night merchants, here today and gone tomorrow. They are there permanently, because they have an investment in the town centre market. The same cannot be


said for car boot sale operators, or some of the unscrupulous private market operators. They really are here today and gone tomorrow, and when they disappear consumer rights disappear with them.
When things go wrong, consumers will start to bang on the Minister's door seeking compensation. At the moment, in the unlikely event of anything going wrong they can call on any of the stall holders in Darlington market and seek compensation face to face. That will no longer be true if the measure is passed and the more unscrupulous cowboy operators start doing business in towns such as Darlington.
The fourth set of potential losers should concern the Minister even more. He will know that many of the unscrupulous cowboy operators do not bother to declare their earnings to the Inland Revenue or to register for VAT. With the public sector debt so high and taxes rising, I should have thought that the Minister would be concerned to ensure that the maximum sums flow into the Treasury's coffers. Yet the Bill gives the potential for precisely the reverse to happen. That should be a source of concern to the hon. Gentleman.
The fifth set of losers are the general public. The Minister knows that when the markets are opened to unscrupulous traders—especially some of the car boot sale operators whom we all know about, because our constituents have lobbied us and the police have warned us about them—a market in stolen goods will be opened up. Will there be an increase in crime, in house and car burglaries, as a result of the Bill and will there be consequential additional demands for financial compensation from the Government?

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that many prosecutions have taken place in the areas where the car boot markets operate? In Liverpool there has been an unending series of prosecutions, which confirms my hon. Friend's argument about the downward trend in the regulation of that aspect of markets.

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right, and it should worry us that there is no mention of that in the money resolution. Nor is there any mention of the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central—the idea of a compensation package for local authorities. In Darlington, for example, the markets generate revenue surpluses of about £300,000 per annum. All that could disappear overnight when the undercutting and the sale of cheap goods that the Bill promises starts. The money resolution is inadequate because the Bill itself is inadequate.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) talked about the ways in which the House could make various office-holders and Ministers accountable, the potential waste of public money, and the need for scrutiny by the House. He mentioned various mechanisms, but another mechanism available to an aggrieved member of the public is to go to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Hon. Members who were present for the earlier debate will have heard the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ask whether the Minister would exclude the Parliamentary Commissioner from the definition of

"office-holder" under clause 57(2) and 57(3). In other words, the Parliamentary Commissioner thinks that the current definition would allow the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner to be privatised and given to independent contractors. The House will have noticed that in his wind-up speech the Minister failed to deal with the point. It may be that he was short of time or that he failed to remember that point. In the eight minutes still available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six minutes."]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have roughly three and half minutes.

Mr. Fatchett: In the three and a half minutes available, will the Minister answer the specific point about the Parliamentary Commissioner?

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I will answer the point put by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) first. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a clear statement of our intentions in respect of statutory office-holders and I do not intend to repeat what he said except to make clear—I think that he referred only to the Comptroller and Auditor General—that we shall ensure that office-holders, including the ombudsman, cannot be compelled to contract out by the making of an order as it will be for them and them alone to give authority to any contractor appointed to carry out their functions, and that they could refuse to do.
I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that there has never been any intention or desire on our part to compromise the independence of these constitutionally important office-holders. Our legal advice was that the position was perfectly secure in any event. If any of the office-holders did not wish to avail himself of the opportunity provided by the enabling power in the Bill to contract out certain of his functions, those functions would not be contracted out. I hope that those assurances will be helpful and that discussions may conclude the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned if the hon. Gentleman is still not satisfied.
On the points raised by the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), compensation does not arise in the case of markets where the privilege is owned by the local authorities because the European convention on human rights does not apply to public rights. Compensation is not intended because there is no justification for buying out undesirable monopoly rights owned by local authorities. I do not accept for one moment all the prophecies of doom and gloom that the hon. Members gave us this evening. They talked about cowboy operators. When I was a boy and used to go to Saturday morning cinema, the cowboys were the good guys. I suppose that it is not politically correct to refer to Indians in that respect today. I can assure the hon. Members that their fears are entirely illusory. I cannot believe for a minute that local authorities will have justifiable claims for compensation, even if such compensation were available. I have no doubt that we shall debate those matters at inordinate length in Committee. That is an encounter to which I greatly look forward. I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington will be there with me in the long watches of the night.
I am not one of those who thinks that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is a prolix, pedantic old bore—

It being three quarters of an hour after the commence-ment of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 115.

Division No. 112]
[11.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Robert
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Elletson, Harold


Bates, Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faber, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fabricant, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gallie, Phil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butcher, John
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren





Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maginnis, Ken
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mariand, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mariow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Thumham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trimble, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Waterson, Nigel
Wilshire, David


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. David Lightbown.


Willetts, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Enright, Derek


Adams, Mrs Irene
Etherington, Bill


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barnes, Harry
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Ingram, Adam


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry





Llwyd, Elfyn
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Simpson, Alan


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Mahon, Alice
Spellar, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Milburn, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Morgan, Rhodri
Watson, Mike


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Andrew


Mudie, George
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder, the Forestry Commissioners or the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce for making payments under contracts entered into under or by virtue of the Act;
(b) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or office holder in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.

Orders of the Day — Timeshare (Council Tax)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Would that you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, could be spirited away to some distant enchanted timeshare accommodation. If I pursued that line, I fear that you would rapidly rule me out of order.
I turn to the subject of the debate, which relates to timeshare and the council tax. The heart of the matter and the real issue at stake is a simple question—is timeshare ownership a continuing commercial activity and therefore rightly subject to business rates, or is it a non-commercial, non-business activity and therefore rightly subject to non-business taxation? Historically, the first non-business taxation was domestic rating, followed by the community charge and now by the council tax.
The true nature of timeshare ownership is the heart of the matter, and that is for the Government to answer. The answer to that question alone should determine whether timeshare owners should pay business or non-business taxation. If timeshare ownership is a commercial activity, it should be subject to commercial taxation. If timeshare ownership is not a commercial activity, it should be subject to "domestic" taxation—currently the council tax.
The immediate background to the debate is known to my hon. Friend. Before the introduction of the community charge in Scotland in 1989, and in England and Wales in 1990—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify a matter. I distinctly heard motion No. 3 being moved by the Government and folding on the Opposition's objection. Could you confirm whether that is the position?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Whip on duty for the Government said "Not moved" to each of the motions.

Mr. Hunter: I wrongly anticipated an intervention from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I now make the point that I do have an interest in the timeshare industry, which is unrelated to the subject of the debate. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to draw the House's attention to an oversight on my part. I do declare that interest and, of course, in applying for the debate to Madam Speaker, I also mentioned that I am involved in the timeshare industry. Having wrongly anticipated the point of order, I shall proceed.
I was making the point that the introduction of the community charge in Scotland in 1989 provided the first evidence that the Government had changed their mind, and henceforth intended to treat timeshare ownership as a commerical activity subject to business rates. Scottish timeshare interests took action and challenged the Government. The issue at stake was simple: had the Government properly given themselves all full, appropriate and necessary powers to make the change, or had they made a drafting cock-up? The latter was the case.
In August 1991, the Scottish Lands Valuation Appeal Court found against the Government and ruled that, under existing legislation, timeshare ownership in Scotland should carry a community charge, not a business rates liability. That decision was retrospectively effected to the

date of the introduction of the community charge, and remained in force until the abolition of the community charge in April last year.
During the community charge era in England and Wales—April 1990 to March 1993–the Government set about treating timeshare ownership in England and Wales in exactly the same way as they had demonstrated that they wished timeshare ownership in Scotland to be treated. The Government thus performed a U-turn in their treatment of timeshare ownership in England and Wales, as they had sought to do in Scotland. They deemed timeshare ownership a commercial activity and accordingly subject to business rates.
Following the success of timeshare interests in the Scottish Lands Valuation Court in August 1990, timeshare interests in England and Wales prepared to seek a similar ruling to restore the previous taxation regime in England and Wales. Very favourable counsel's opinion was obtained, but, as I understand the situation, no final decision has yet been made whether to proceed against the Government.
In April 1993, under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, timeshare ownership was well and truly encompassed within the business rates regime. The legality of that transition and the post-April 1993 ruling is not disputed. What is disputed, however, is the principle and correctness of the assessment and treatment of timeshare.
Through their taxation policy, the Government demonstrate their belief that timeshare ownership is different from other forms of home ownership. Timeshare ownership alone among second home ownership is categorised per se as a commercial activity for taxation purposes. No other form of second home ownership is automatically so categorised.
That view stems from a fundamental misunderstanding by the Government of the true nature of timeshare ownership. I believe that the wrong advice that my hon. Friend the Minister continues to be given about timeshare ownership has its origins in two paragraphs of a flawed departmental practice note entitled "The boundary between the community charge and non-domestic rates: definition of domestic property: practice note No. 4, May 1990."
The most relevant paragraph—paragraph 5·2–reads:
The Valuation Office takes the view, however, that the timeshare company will be subject to business rates, provided that the accommodation is available for letting commercially for 140 days or more in a year (as is likely to be the case in most if not all instances).
The disturbing reality is that the author of that paragraph, the purveyor of advice to Ministers, simply did not understand the subject matter with which he was dealing. He did not know what he was writing about. The direction of taxation that he advocated was wrong. He was thinking in terms of taxable income when no income existed.
I will explain to my hon. Friend the Minister as slowly and carefully as I can, lest he hears only what his officials tell him. In timeshare operations, neither the leasehold nor the freehold titles to timeshare dwellings are kept by the timeshare company. They are made across by the developer to a trustee, who then holds the title for the benefit of the timesharer. It is hard to conceive how a more fundamental mistake could have been made by my hon. Friend's Department.
The commercial element and dimension of timeshare comes to an end when the timeshare is purchased. The timeshare owner—he or she whom the Government view for taxation purposes as a commercial activist—is not remotely or by any conceivable criterion of judgment involved in on-going commercial activity. There is therefore no justification for treating him or her in that way. The Government have got it wrong—they should listen to what their friends are telling them.
In May 1990, the Government acted on advice that was fundamentally flawed. Inevitably, key aspects of related and subsequent policy on timeshare have reflected and perpetuated that monumental error. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—then the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—wrote in his "Dear Member of Parliament" letter on 31 March 1993:
Timeshare units in England have been assessed for business rates under the Community Charge and will continue on the same basis with the Council Tax. People will not therefore face big changes in their bills for their properties…Some people think it would be advantageous to switch timeshare properties to a Council Tax levy, although this would entail more sizeable changes both up and down depending on the nature and location of the property. For any individual timesharer their portion of the difference would usually be very small. On balance we feel it is better not to change the basis of taxation for these properties, which do have similarities to hotels and self-catering holiday accommodation in terms of holiday use, although ownership is different.
My right hon. Friend thus expressed the Government's opinion that timeshare ownership henceforth was to be regarded as a commercial enterprise, and would therefore be subject to business rates. He further expressed the Government's opinion that the imposition of business rates did not, or would not, disadvantage timeshare owners.
My right hon. Friend spoke in good faith. We were right to accept his judgment, pending evidence to persuade us otherwise. We were justified in giving him the benefit of our doubts—at least for the time being. I regret that we now know that he was mistaken. The judgment of those of us who warned him that he was miscalculating has been proved to be right. He wrote:
For any individual timesharer their portion of the difference"—
between council tax and business rates—
would usually be very small.
Few statements could be further from the truth.
Lochanhilly in Speyside has the smallest difference that my researchers unearthed. Even there, the increase is 94 per cent.—from £9·40 to £18·64 per week. Few people would regard that as "a very small" increase. Delfaber in Speyside has witnessed a 152 per cent. increase from community charge to business rate—from £9·60 to £24·20 per week.
At Forest Hills in Stirling, the increase was from £13·80 to £36·64 per week, which was 164 per cent. Loch Rannoch in Perthshire witnessed an increase of 332 per cent.—from £5·06 to £21·86. The increase at Kilconquhar, Fife was £10·92 to £39·16 per week, which is a staggering 358 per cent. Pride of place in the catalogue goes to Kenmore in Perthshire, where the weekly increase is a towering 703 per cent.—a jump from £5·06 a week under the community charge to £40·64 under the business rate.
Mr. Eric Sheehy wrote to me from Solihull a few days ago:
I have just paid my management fee invoice for the three weeks I have at Craigendarroch, Royal Deeside. There is an item

'Dwelling tax: £40·50' for each week, a total of £130·50. On an annual basis the tax is £2,262 which compares with the £701·83 band H property tax I pay to Solihull.
I calculate that Mr. Sheehy pays £13·83 per week in council tax to Solihull, compared with £40·50 per week in business rates for his timeshare ownership.
It is easier to find the evidence in Scotland, where the transition from community charge to business rates has been made, but it can also be found in England. I learned yesterday of a timeshare site in Kent, where, even with the benefit of transitional relief, the annual business rate for an average unit is £743. Without transition relief, it would be £,760. The annual council tax on property of the same market value is only £450. The difference between business rates and council tax is 165 per cent. per week with transitional relief, and 391 per cent. without relief.
I have focused attention on one small sector of national economic activity—the purchase of timeshare. I do not regard tonight's debate as an exercise in confrontation. I suspect that most United Kingdom timeshare owners have a greater affinity with the political philosophy of the Conservative party than with that of other political parties. Therefore, I whisper to my hon. Friend the Minister that I believe that the Government have got it wrong, and should reconsider.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has built up considerable expertise over the years in making clear the concerns of the timeshare industry. I have careful regard for what he has to say, because my hon. Friend has regular and detailed contact with all the important figures in the timeshare industry. As his comments this evening have shown, he has made a careful study of the subject and has sought to put all the facts before the House.
However, having listened carefully to everything said by my hon. Friend tonight and in the meetings that we have had with him, my ministerial colleagues and I still remain firmly of the view that timeshare accommodation is essentially a commercial activity. It is a business activity, and should clearly be regarded as non-domestic for local tax purposes.
My hon. Friend questioned whether timeshare should be considered as a business or non-business activity. That is the wrong test. The test is whether it should be considered a domestic or a non-domestic activity. My hon. Friend also fairly acknowledged that the Government's approach is entirely consistent in the way in which they tax timeshare ownership. As my hon. Friend said, alone among second home ownership, time ownership is categorised, per se, as a commercial activity for taxation purposes.
Officials in my Department and the Scottish Office met the timeshare industry three times between 1991 and 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who was then a Minister in the Department of the Environment, met the industry on three further occasions, including one meeting when my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke was present. It may help to finalise the matter if I explain in some detail why we have taken, and continue firmly to hold, our view.
It is fair to say that, under general rates, the specific treatment of timeshare accommodation was not important—there was only the element of domestic rate relief at stake. It was with the advent of separate local taxation


systems for domestic and non-domestic property that the boundary between the regimes, particularly the treatment of holiday accommodation, became more significant. The test of whether a property was domestic or non-domestic became important.
In settling a number of broadly similar boundary issues, the status of timeshare accommodation was approached from basic principles. We decided to treat such property as non-domestic because its use was more like that of self-catering and other short-stay accommodation—which is rateable and is treated as non-domestic—than the use of second homes. A variety of different people use timeshare property throughout the year for short periods, and can swap their access to it for "time" elsewhere.
Despite consulting widely in 1988 before the decision was made, we did not receive any representations from the timeshare industry. It was not until 1991 that the newly established Timeshare Council began to lobby that timeshare properties should be considered as domestic. As I said, officials met the council a number of times to talk about their argument for a change in Government policy.
Throughout that period, Ministers have been of the view first taken in Scotland in the 1985 revaluation, that such property was clearly non-domestic. We remained of that view during consultation with the industry in late 1992 and early 1993, leading to the making of the orders in England and Wales and in Scotland to define the property as non-domestic. Those orders have been before the House.
I shall explain later the significance of an appeal case that led to the temporary difference in the Scottish treatment to which my hon. Friend referred. As I explained earlier, in the period running up to and just after making the orders, Ministers had a number of meetings with the timeshare industry, including one with my hon. Friend. I therefore hope that the House will be in no doubt that Ministers have considered this issue very carefully on a number of occasions, and have considered all the arguments that might be and have been put to us.
Nothing said then or tonight has persuaded me that it is wrong to consider timeshare units as non-domestic. We are concerned not with what a property looks like but with how it is used. Timeshares are used like holiday cottages, but occupied all year round by different people. Some of those people are not the owners, because it is common practice for owners to swap their access to a timeshare property with others. Moreover, the use of timeshare units as permanent residences is prohibited by the terms of their occupation, so they are not like other domestic property, and they are clearly not holiday homes.
Because timeshare properties are likely to be occupied all year round, they place on local authorities demands for services that differ from those of second homes. We therefore have no plans whatever to revoke the orders made to define timeshare units as non-domestic property. That is how we view the question of principle, which follows the facts in a straigthtforward way.
I am well aware that many timeshare owners regard the size of the rates bills as the most important consideration. Notwithstanding the arguments about principle, may I turn to the analysis that we have done of the claimed differences in bills under rates and the community charge or council

tax? The position in England and Wales is different from that in Scotland, so it may be helpful if I deal with the countries separately.
Since the introduction of the community charge, and subsequently the council tax in England and Wales, timeshares have been treated as non-domestic. Timeshare complexes have been entered in rating lists and, although the assessments have been challenged, the courts have not ruled against our view that such property should be treated as non-domestic.
Last year, I understand, the Timeshare Council compiled evidence which it claimed showed that timeshare owners would be considerably better off if their property in England and Wales became liable to the council tax. It said that, on average, the difference was a factor of five or six times.
Reforms of local taxation always have redistributive effects. It is inevitable that a Government who want to change a tax do so because they think that burdens are not falling in the right places at appropriate levels. When moving from rates to a community charge, or from a community charge to a council tax, changes in the disposition of that tax would inevitably occur.
However, such a Government reach conclusions about who should pay and the amount of their bills on grounds of principle, not simply according to the size of bills. In England and Wales, timeshare accommodation has been taxed as non-domestic property throughout the period since 1990, and the introduction of the council tax has not led to increased bills. So this was a question of the gain that might have been achieved for timeshare owners.
I acknowledge the Timeshare Council sample was representative and the council's assumptions about the relative rateable values and council tax bandings were correct; but in practice, we believe that a number of factors would reduce the difference shown by the council between the rates and council tax bills.
First, the Timeshare Council automatically assumed that a 50 per cent. council tax discount would apply, thus doubling the difference between rates and the council tax. We would want to consider whether such a difference was appropriate, given that such property would be almost continuously occupied throughout the year.
Secondly, the Timeshare Council disregarded the effects of business rate transitional relief, which most English and Welsh timeshare complexes currently enjoy, and of last year's Budget measures incorporated in the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993, which held the timeshare complexes bills constant in real terms. All that was therefore approximately equivalent to a further doubling of the difference between the burden of the taxes.
Thirdly, the Timeshare Council did not take into account the fact that most, if not all, timeshare complexes would be composite hereditaments with a continuing rates liability, even if the units of accommodation were domestic. There would be rates payable on the extensive and often well-appointed communal facilities, which would have to be met by timeshare owners.
Taken together, those factors reduce quite substantially the difference claimed by the timeshare industry. Instead of the eight or ninefold difference that the council claimed for its examples, even allowing for the 50 per cent. council tax discount, we consider the factor to be no more than about three. The actual figure would vary in each case, and from place to place, as facilities and transitional relief differ.
It is important to remember that each timeshare owner faces only a week or fortnight's share of the annual bill, so the actual cost to any particular timeshare owner is not particularly large.
In Scotland, while timeshare units were originally treated as non-domestic following the 1985 revaluation, as we have already acknowledged in the debate, a court case found that the law north of the border should have been interpreted in such a way that they were domestic.
Until the introduction of the council tax, timeshare properties in Scotland were subject to the standard community charge. Notwithstanding the court's interpretation of the meaning of the law, the Government remained of the view that such property should in principle be non-domestic.
Although we did not consider it necessary to legislate to reverse the court's decision at the time, we took the early opportunity, with the introduction of the council tax, to remove the ambiguity and restore consistency of treatment throughout Great Britain. The treatment of timeshare properties has been exactly the same in Scotland as it is in England and Wales since the introduction of the council tax.
While there may be arguments which suggest that the bill that timeshare owners face would be lower if their property were subject to the council tax, the margin of the reduction would be smaller than is claimed. Notwithstanding that, we remain of the view that, as a matter of principle, timeshare units are more properly treated as non-domestic and thus subject to rates.
I know that this matter has caused my hon. Friend concern. This evening, he gave a number of examples where he feels that people have been treated harshly. Without looking at the exact facts—for example, in some of the instances he gave in Scotland—it is difficult to calculate how much of the increase that people may be asked to pay relates to communal facilities. Those communal facilities are often well appointed, including swimming pools and other recreational facilities, and clearly must be treated as business and non-domestic usage.
I acknowledge that my hon. Friend will not necessarily be satisfied with my response, and I have no doubt that the timeshare industry will consider my comments disappointing. However, he will no doubt acknowledge that successive Ministers have considered this issue very carefully several times. Having given it the deepest thought, we have come to the clear conclusion that, on the basis of any common-sense and objective approach, timeshare properties are commercial properties in which business activities are conducted and should be treated, for local tax purposes, as non-domestic.
I hope that this valuable debate has enabled us to clarify the matter once and for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve midnight.